Program “2019” from November 15, 2019. Navalny on the future of the opposition and the transfer of power

Are we already on the air?! I’ve become like Dymarsky. He also shouts all the time.

We’re on fire. Good evening! This is the program “2019.” Until I begin, there will be laughter here, you know. And today is a historic event, two historic events.

We are all in Moscow. Navalny is free. Dymarsky is not in St. Petersburg. And I’m here too, in Moscow.

We have historic events. Good evening!

Good evening, everyone! In general, everything is now clear. But now we need to remind everyone that +7 985 970 45 45 is for SMS. The account vyzvon on Twitter. And something is happening on YouTube with us. I remember that you need to put likes there.

You can also write questions there. I will also take this opportunity to say that on my Facebook I also opened a thread for questions for Alexei, since a huge number of them started coming in today during the day. We will definitely ask some questions. A. Navalny: How did a man who worked as a prosecutor all his life get several million euros? But I will ask the first question from Dmitry Guberniev. Dmitry Guberniev was a guest on our A-Team program literally on Thursday. That was yesterday, as it turns out.

And everyone knows that Dmitry Guberniev is a sports commentator for VGTRK?

And here is his question. I quote from the transcript: “A question for Alexei Navalny: What will happen when you come to power? What will happen to Guberniev, who was a trusted representative? What will happen to us, Alexei?” asks Dmitry Guberniev.

The answer to this question depends on whose trusted representative he was.

Putin’s.

Trusted representatives can do anything they want within the law. And in that sense, we have no complaints against people who love Putin — whether they really love him or lie that they love him does not interest us… If Dmitry Guberniev was not involved in corruption, in jailing people, in some unlawful acts that are punishable even under the current criminal code, then please, Dmitry Guberniev will do whatever he wants in the beautiful Russia of the future. He will have a shameful page in his biography, that he was Putin’s trusted representative, that’s basically all, and that will be his punishment. He will explain to his grandchildren why he was Putin’s trusted representative. A. Navalny: If Denis Popov cannot explain the origin of his money, that is grounds for a criminal case

Well, and if seriously? Let’s talk about lustration.

[inaudible] Then what awaits Popov?

Denis Popov.

And Denis Popov is in for completely different things.

Let’s remind everyone who this is.

Denis Popov is the Moscow prosecutor, who turned out to own real estate in both Montenegro and Spain; naturally, none of it was declared. And most importantly, the source of the funds is completely unclear. That is, the man secretly invested millions of euros abroad. And I do not doubt that we found only part of his real estate. That is, what he has in Astrakhan, on Rublyovka, in Montenegro and in Spain, is worth several million euros. How did a man who worked as a prosecutor all his life get them? I would say that our quite well-founded assumption is corruption and bribes. Therefore, Denis Popov’s activities must be investigated. If he cannot explain the origin of his money — and of course he cannot explain anything, since he did not declare it — then this is grounds for opening a criminal case. Send him to trial.

Alexei, I have this question. All your investigations, the latest one about Popov — has any of them ever had official consequences?

There is Metelsky.

Metelsky was not re-elected.

But that was the voters, not the state.

Unfortunately, our bitter reality is arranged in such a way that once, at first, the authorities were afraid of such things. Remember, there was that deputy Pekhtin? And we found an apartment for him in Miami — and within a couple of weeks he stopped being a deputy. He was not even removed; he left on his own. A. Navalny: That was a period when the authorities were still a little embarrassed by something It was simply a period when the authorities were still a little embarrassed by something. Now, unfortunately, it works differently. And despite the fact that we completely exposed Denis Popov, the Moscow prosecutor, they still cannot remove him. Because if they remove Popov from office…

…then Navalny was right.

What will Echo of Moscow talk about? Navalny was right, Navalny beat them, Navalny proved that the prosecutor’s office is corrupt, and all the FSB checks Peskov told us about are just complete nonsense. There are no FSB checks. One mafioso appoints another mafioso. They cannot allow themselves that. Therefore, this really is such a frustrating part of our work, that people about whom we publish facts of corruption cannot be removed.

Then what is the point?

The point is that this is our job. If this person is a thief and a corrupt official, we tell people that he is a thief and a corrupt official. And in a situation, for example, with Metelsky, who held an elected office, we proved to people in the district where they elected him that he is a thief and a corrupt official, and he stopped being a deputy. Today there was a hearing in the Simonovsky court, where he ran and demanded that the court ban the use of the phrase “The leader of United Russia is a crook and a thief.” Well, good luck to him with that case.

So that is his only complaint?

His complaint is about that phrase. His complaint is about the words that Metelsky himself, the leader of Moscow’s United Russia, let me remind you, and former deputy of the Moscow City Duma, is a corrupt official. And some others… He simply pulled phrases out… Interestingly, he does not actually dispute that he has real estate, a hotel in Austria. A. Navalny: People about whom we publish facts of corruption cannot be removed And when our representative in court says to Metelsky’s representative: “Explain. Let’s talk about the hotels. Where did he get the money for them, and so on?” he says: “We do not want to discuss this, it is not interesting to us. You must refute the phrase ‘Metelsky is a thief,’ because you have no court decision saying ‘Metelsky is a thief.’ Since there is no such decision, you must refute it, the video must be deleted. And all the other things — some millions, some Spanish hotels, the origin of the funds — we are not going to discuss. We are not interested in that.” And the judge agrees with him, says: “No, we won’t discuss that.”

Tell me, do your investigations and these publications somehow influence public opinion? Since we understand that they get a large number of views, get replicated, get spread around. And it is clear that this information reaches a large number of people who, at least, use the internet. But does this somehow affect their attitude toward these specific people, toward events, toward politics? In general, does a cause-and-effect relationship work? Because when we talk about Popov and Metelsky, we are still talking about a system headed by a very specific person.

Of course it does. And there are many facts proving that it does. I already mentioned Metelsky. He simply was not elected. And, generally speaking, far fewer United Russia candidates were elected in this election cycle in Moscow and in other cities, including thanks to our investigations. There was a well-known sociological study that showed that after the release of the film “He Is Not Dimon to You,” we basically destroyed Medvedev’s rating once and for all. Since then it has never grown again. That is, Medvedev is now, among well-known figures, the most unpopular politician in the country. And that is, of course, thanks to our investigation.

But that old lady got down on her knees before him.

The old lady wants hot water. The old lady would get on her knees before Chikatilo, unfortunately, before Sokolov in Napoleon’s triangle. Because that is some kind of authority figure. The old lady understands: “I’ll run over now, fall to my knees in the dirt, and then maybe they’ll give me the hot water I haven’t seen for two years.” She ran, she fought for her hot water. It would be rather strange to condemn her. One should condemn Putin, who keeps at the head of the government this very corrupt prime minister Medvedev.

He doesn’t need a rating anyway, actually, he is not running for anything, at least for now.

We don’t know that yet. A. Navalny: Medvedev is now, among well-known figures, the most unpopular politician in the country

He is not running. And Putin, in turn, is interested in the fact that a man who is his close associate and the head of the government, the second person in the country, depends only on Putin; he understands that the population does not love him, will never elect him anywhere. Any future власти will persecute him for his corruption. Therefore, he needs to do everything so that Putin remains in power, because he is vitally interested in that. The same applies to Metelsky, it applies to the whole system. They are all corrupt officials. And Putin likes that they are corrupt, because their freedom and future personally depend on his power.

And don’t rumors reach you from there that, in general, “everything Navalny does is useful, and we take it on board…”?

It will come in handy for us.

It will come in handy for us. The folder will lie there.

A long time ago they even said this publicly. Medvedev himself. Until “He Is Not Dimon to You” came out and touched him personally, he liked to throw out such vague phrases: “Well, people publish information on the internet. — my name, naturally, has not been mentioned for many years already, — but they are doing something useful.” And at some stage of our activity it was believed that the authorities should respond to such questions this way. But then we turned into outright enemies, because we had already done investigations about them personally, and after that Medvedev started saying that our investigation was not useful, but nonsense and stew.

Someone said, I think almost publicly, that Navalny should be made chairman of the Accounts Chamber.

Many people publicly say strange things. They said many things. It’s just that now, lately, they are no longer allowed to say even such mild or funny things, because in general it is forbidden to mention me in any context. Notice, even absolutely commissioned, negative materials about me come out rather rarely, because since 2013 it has generally been forbidden to mention the name.

All right. Then a few words about relations with potential allies.

My favorite topic: coalition. I adore this question. A. Navalny: Even commissioned materials about me rarely come out, because it has been forbidden to mention the name since 2013

Let’s ask it differently, not about unification: Why, Alexei, does nobody love you? Why do the leaders of all opposition parties not love you?

How do you know?

Well, come on? They do not hide it.

No way! I was sure they did love me. What is happening? You really stunned me, doused me with ice water. Let’s name names: who does not love me?

Everyone: Yabloko people, PARNAS…

Ksyusha means Garik’s latest specific statement that…

No, and Kasparov, everyone, and Khodorkovsky doesn’t love you. They don’t love you. Why?

It seems to me everyone loves me. It’s a complicated thing. Well, what does it mean, love — not love. Historically I have difficult relations, for example, with Yabloko. Nevertheless, in these elections I openly supported Yabloko. And I think all of us, including me, made a great effort to ensure that Yabloko formed historically its largest faction in the Moscow City Duma ever. Is that connected with love or with dislike?

With Lyubov Sobol.

It is connected with Lyubov Sobol. I may have some disagreements in strategy and tactics with Yavlinsky, but that does not mean that I will not support their candidates on principle. I hope that they too, these wonderful people who have some tactical disagreements with me and who perhaps are jealous of me or something else, but overall when some moment X comes and they need my support, they will get it. And when I need their support, I think I will also be able to count on it, probably.

By the way, many of them, without even hiding it, support such a mantra that is actively being introduced in the liberal wing regarding Alexei Navalny: that he is an authoritarian leader, an absolute führer who does not tolerate other people’s opinions, that his work is possible only under his personal leadership, and so on. A. Navalny: We would like the protests to keep growing, as is happening in Colombia or happened in Bolivia First of all, my first question is: who is the author of this concept, in your opinion, if it has an author? And in general, what do you yourselves think about this, where did this narrative come from?

Excellent question. This narrative really exists. It is being actively promoted, and surprisingly it is promoted by people who themselves have stood at the head of their organizations for many years without change. Let’s put it this way: there is a set of certain complaints, invented or real. For example, I advocate boycotting elections sometimes and participating in them sometimes. This is unacceptable for Garry Kasparov, for example. And that is a normal position. He consistently advocates a boycott, so he always argues with me on this topic. And I have nothing against it. Let him argue, we have a discussion. There are also some invented complaints. And it is a clear set: that I am an FSB man, that I work for the Kremlin, that I do not work for the Kremlin; that I am authoritarian, that I am too weak, that I participated in the Russian March, that I am too liberal… And there is this set of things. And one of them is that I am very authoritarian. What can I answer to that…

In a minute, after the commercials.

In a minute, because due to Navalny’s authoritarianism we missed the commercials. ADVERTISEMENT

We continue our program “2019.” And Navalny continues [inaudible].

People compete, people need to say something negative, including about other people. To those who say that I am some kind of authoritarian leader, I answer very simply: look at the history of my activity. I have consistently always supported primaries. I organized elections to the Opposition Coordination Council when everyone was shouting: “We do not need any elections, just take charge of everything.” In all elections I supported representatives of other parties and do not set any conditions. There were elections to the Moscow City Duma and in other regions just now. Did I go around demanding — sign some declaration that you love me very much and will not criticize me, as the Yabloko party often does? I did not set a single condition for anyone. I supported them simply because they are the opposition. I try to prove every day through practical actions. Look at our organization. It is very democratic. Look at what we do. It is always support for competition. That is basically the whole answer.

I have a question, Alexei, regarding protests. It feels as if all civic activity has stopped, as if everyone has fallen silent. There were rallies. Everyone went home. The trials continue, the sentences continue. If the protest is not repeated, they will simply jail everyone. People need to be saved.

Do you think they can only be saved by new protests?

And by what else?

By the way, what is the strategy?

By any methods. We saw that some of those saved were saved because there was a certain intensity of public opinion. By that moment there were no huge demonstrations anymore. There were, in particular, actors who spoke out. There was simply such a resonance in society, everyone started talking about it. And some people were released. Then, when things went quiet, they started quietly jailing people again.

It feels like they are taking revenge.

Absolutely. By the way, I was riding here just now on the Avtozavodskaya metro station, to your Echo of Moscow radio station on Novy Arbat, and at Avtozavodskaya there was a solo picketer. There is a whole campaign called metro pickets. They stand everywhere. A. Navalny: If I knew how to press a button that would immediately stir up 300 thousand people, I would press it Of course, we would like the protests to keep growing all the time, as is happening in Colombia or recently happened in Bolivia. Alas, it is a wave-like process. Remember, there was 2011, 2012. Enthusiasm. A year later there were exactly the same conversations: “Look, the protest has died down.” Then 2017 — rallies over “He Is Not Dimon to You,” several times in a row. Everyone is celebrating again, writing: “Finally, young people have taken to the streets.” Then everything died down again. It is this kind of wave-like protest. I would like it to be constant… that there would always be anti-government demonstrations every Saturday…

But you are not trying to initiate them.

Why? We are trying. But you cannot initiate irresponsibly. I can call a rally every Saturday, but if no one comes, it will have such a demoralizing effect that for another five years no one will come to rallies. Therefore, if I knew how to press a button that would immediately stir up 300 thousand people and they would instantly run to protest, I would press that button. Unfortunately, there is no such button. So I too, like all of you, like all of us, try to bring people out, I come to all the actions. Lately I rarely get to them, mostly I get arrested somewhere, they simply arrest me a couple of weeks before any action. But nevertheless I still go to them, I am not shy and I am not afraid to call people to them. As for how to bring people out. There is no other solution except routine work in every sense. Dissemination of information, those very metro pickets. They release them because they are afraid of public opinion. Putin is afraid that those arrested and imprisoned lower his rating. He released Pavel Ustinov because all the actors were shouting: “Either release him, or we will hammer you on Instagram.”

Margarita Simonyan has a different opinion. She believes that all your outings, our outings, all the actions, metro pickets, protests — all that is nonsense. Because one party calls another anyway and the issue gets resolved.

Let Margarita Simonyan first return 100 million rubles to us together with her husband, which she spent on her talentless film, first of all. And secondly, let all of them at Russia Today return the 20 billion we spend every year on that stupid, senseless television that nobody watches either on YouTube or, generally speaking, on TV. 20 billion rubles goes there. She is not an authority for me in the slightest.

Nevertheless, I simply gave that example, that quote, to sharpen the point. But in fact many people, including again people who can in many ways be considered our like-minded people, believe that protests do not influence political decisions at all, and civic activity, mass participation do not influence political decisions at all. Those decisions are made by phone call.

All our empirical experience shows that this is not so. Listen, we were not born yesterday either. We have seen the actions and the consequences of those actions. After all, I am sitting in this studio. And although I have been convicted several times, they did not put me in prison for five years in 2012 because people came out to Manezhnaya Square. I am an example. Golunov is an example, the same Ustinov is an example. And there are other such examples. We know absolutely for certain that only this works.

About Golunov, that is exactly what I wanted to ask. It feels as though if back then the campaign around Golunov’s arrest had not interfered with some PR or something for Putin, who at that time was in St. Petersburg at the forum.

Then nobody talked about the forum, everyone talked only about Golunov.

Yes. That it was a mistake by the силовики in relation to Putin, not in relation to Golunov.

Probably, yes. But why was it a mistake? That is, he was arrested — people began to be outraged and therefore the силовики realized that it was a mistake. But if people had not been outraged… Still, what is primary and what is secondary…

[inaudible] Putin alone.

Putin would tomorrow imprison half the country, leave only one Gazprom pipeline. It brings in money; he does not need pensioners or anyone. He would imprison them all, let them work and build a new pipeline. He would not even raise an eyebrow. But when he sees that simply thousands of people are writing on Facebook and it is obvious that they are about to flood the streets, then he releases these people. Of course, later they package it in such a design: “We released them ourselves. Why were you all outraged?” But we understand perfectly well that they start thinking about something only when they fear one thing: “We overdid it. A little more and they will go into the streets.” Then they release them. A. Navalny: Putin is afraid that those arrested and imprisoned lower his rating

Someone recently published this figure, and it struck me. I think over the last 10 years, how many people were imprisoned. 30 thousand.

Come on.

Imprisoned in general or on political…

Not political, or in general?

30 thousand is unlikely. Our prison population is now about 600 thousand people.

No, 30 thousand specifically under these articles, protesters…

I think that figure is exaggerated.

If I’m not mistaken, it was Mediazona, I think.

We’ll check it in the news so as not to mislead anyone.

I think it is unlikely, but we do see an obvious trend. The number of absurd cases from the series of simply… Yesterday they discussed that someone posted on Facebook: people formed the number 55 with their bodies, and from the side it was photographed as a swastika. And they opened a case. If there had been no scandal on Facebook, they would have convicted that person. How many times has that happened. The system can no longer work any other way. They earn positions, ranks, apartments by jailing people. Because Putin told them: “I will give you positions, ranks, apartments if you imprison people, in particular those who write on Facebook, VKontakte, and so on.” What you said at the beginning of the program, that if we stay silent, they will imprison everyone. They do in fact have a plan to imprison everyone.

Regarding imprisonments and releases, there is a very good topic that I would like you to dwell on in more detail in the second part, but I will ask the question now. All those actors who came out for Pavel Ustinov, for whom we were all so happy. That happened without you, Alexei. You were sitting then, watching through the bars what was happening. But when they came to the rally at which, I think, you also spoke that day.

When I had already been released, yes.

There was a wonderful report by TV Rain from that acting fraternity. Wonderful guys, all great, but all of them were completely confused under the pressure of this political topic. They found themselves in an absolutely alien space. And they immediately started saying: “Oh, this is all not ours. We only want people to be released. But politics — no, no, no, we are against politics. We are not rebelling against the authorities. We only want a specific innocent person to be released.” That is why I recall what I already said, the cause-and-effect relationship. How can it be made so that this arc closes in people’s minds after all?

Listen, it has closed for them, let’s be honest. They understand everything perfectly well. It’s just that the boldest among them, Yana Troyanova, one of the most famous actresses in Russia, who definitely has something to lose, stands at these pickets every Saturday because everything has clicked into place for her, and she is not afraid, and she speaks honestly. As for all the others… well, they are at the first stage of this evolution. They all understand, but they are afraid. They are very dependent… The unfortunate and pitiful Minister Medinsky can simply destroy their career with one snap of his fingers, and no one will ever cast them again. Therefore, for them this is already an act of fantastic courage. We would like them to remain so brave further on, but unfortunately not all of them can. But thank you for doing at least something. Compared with what there was a year ago, this is already great progress. NEWS

Good evening once again! The program “2019.” All three of us are in the Moscow studio — Ksenia Larina and I, Vitaly Dymarsky. And our guest is Alexei Navalny.

Let’s return to the figure.

Yes, we checked the figure.

Many thanks to our listener, my Facebook friend Gera Vorontsov. He sent me a link. This is OVD-Info. Under the article on violating the rules for rallies and demonstrations, marches or pickets, over the last 15 years more than 30 thousand people have been convicted. A. Navalny: If we stay silent, they will imprison everyone. They do have a plan to imprison everyone

Well yes… In fact, OVD-Info should certainly be trusted. I am just estimating roughly now. In 2017 “He Is Not Dimon to You.” 2 thousand people… Recently too about 5 thousand across all rallies. So, probably, that’s how it comes out.

2 thousand a year, it turns out.

Since the moment they adopted these laws under which arrests and fines are imposed for participation in rallies, that is probably how it came out. 30 thousand people is a huge number.

One could say these are already mass repressions.

To that we should, of course, also say, let’s be honest, that not all these people were imprisoned; they were fined, or among them there were people briefly arrested: 30 days, 15 days. But nevertheless, it is certainly the work of a repressive apparatus.

Especially since now we do not have political articles as such except extremism. And everything else that existed in Soviet times, “dissident articles,” does not exist now.

Now there is no article, what was it called, “for anti-Soviet propaganda.” But nevertheless, now look, there are already thousands of cases for insulting government representatives. And in 80% of cases — I saw the statistics today — it is insulting Putin, writing something about Putin.

Krivoruchko was insulted too, [inaudible] people have already gathered.

Someone wrote the right thing: if you write “Judge to the soap.” Judge Krivoruchko to the soap.

“Corrupt judge” — one comrade had such a remark too.

Does that also mean it is a call to murder Judge Krivoruchko? He himself judged me several times. I do not feel the slightest warm feelings toward Judge Krivoruchko.

Can we return to the beginning, if you don’t mind, to the first question from Dmitry Guberniev. And ask seriously after all about lustration — which is, of course, the hobbyhorse of libertarians and Mikhail Svetov — but still, how effective is this instrument in freeing ourselves from the damned past and moving toward the Russia of the future?

And then I will ask about the libertarians.

I believe that this instrument is effective. And the history of our neighbors, first of all the Czech Republic and Germany, has shown that this instrument is effective. Moreover, those countries that nevertheless carried out lustration to one degree or another clearly developed better and became richer, more successful countries. There is an ambiguous view of this problem. But I am certainly in that part of the opposition spectrum that believes that lustration is, of course, needed in Russia. This was Yeltsin’s biggest problem. He did not do it.

He himself was part of that system.

Fine, he was part of that system. But even in his early term there were people who slandered him, there were people who jailed dissidents even in the final years. When did Anatoly Marchenko die from a hunger strike? In 1989 or 1990 he died. That is, executioners were still serving then, people who committed crimes even under Soviet laws. I am not saying that Yeltsin should have lustrated all members of the CPSU, but judges who handed down unjust sentences, security service employees who dealt with dissidents — them, of course, it was necessary to lustrate, not arrange them with oligarchs, like this Filipp Bobkov. He worked for Gusinsky. That was a monstrous mistake. That is why nothing worked out for us. I certainly believe that if we do not carry out lustration in some form, our chances of success, Russia’s chances of success and normal development, will be much lower. A. Navalny: If we do not carry out lustration, Russia’s chances of success and normal development will be much lower

All right, the answer to Guberniev was very detailed.

By the way, as far as I remember, Bobkov has passed away, hasn’t he?

Yes, he is gone, he passed away.

But I remember that people who knew him, and he himself said that, on the one hand, yes, but on the other hand, that he almost saved Solzhenitsyn by securing his expulsion instead of having him imprisoned here.

Okay, he saved Solzhenitsyn and imprisoned 42 people. All those investigators who fabricate cases now, they are all such nice and good people too. I constantly have situations where a person writes up something against you, simply invents a protocol, and at the same time raises his eyes and says: “Actually, Alexei, of course I support you. You are doing a good thing.” People who come to search my house — my wife wakes me up, my daughter is sitting there — they walk around… [inaudible] sent greetings to your program, she is a big fan of it…

Thank you, Yulia. We send you a very, very big hello too. And they walk around the apartment, rummage through children’s things, and at the same time the operative or even the investigator comes over and says: “But actually, of course, Alexei, we have nothing personal against you. You are doing a good thing. We ourselves would shoot all these corrupt officials, but right now, of course, we have to rummage through all your things, poke around and look for something here. Although we understand that there is nothing here and nothing to look for here and all of this is sucked out of a finger. But it’s not us — life is like that.” That does not make it any easier for us.

And in general, once you start sorting it out — I think Alexei himself is already confused — how many lawsuits are there now in total?

And that, in fact, really is already quite hard to keep track of. These lawsuits appear… How many of such suits have been satisfied. The biggest ones: Mosgortrans, the Armenia restaurant… But new ones appear. Last week we learned that some noodle shop is suing us.

They also want billions, right?

It sounds like a joke, but they want 100 thousand rubles because, as they believe, they did not sell enough noodles. And I, Alburov, I think, Sobol, Yankauskas got in the way of that. Today we were in court with Metelsky. In our office there is a big wall with a schedule of court hearings written on it. And every day there are several. The biggest is 88 million rubles, which Prigozhin, Putin’s cook, that same one, won from me and Sobol and the ACF. In total, as far as I remember, claims for 40 million rubles have been filed against us. Already satisfied, including Prigozhin’s…

What do you mean, satisfied? Are you paying?

Those 88 million are already it.

Where do you get, excuse the expression, that kind of money? A. Navalny: We are all terribly sick of questions about Crimea and Ukraine, I avoid them, I do not want to follow Putin’s agenda

We are not paying anything. Of course, we cannot pay any 88 million rubles. It is ridiculous. It is clear that the amount is absurd. It was almost on the same day when we proved in court that Prigozhin had poisoned Moscow children, and the court makes a decision: pay each family of a poisoned child 15 thousand rubles. And at the same time we must pay Prigozhin 88 million rubles. This absurd amount is simply there to paralyze the ACF. Now they will, on legal grounds, always seize everything from us, because we will supposedly owe until the end of time…

So they seize equipment as debt repayment.

No, right now they seize it just like that. But after some time it will not be some FSB men seizing it, but bailiffs. They will seize equipment from the ACF and from my apartment and from Sobol’s apartment. They will seize, I don’t know what — televisions or sofas, because it needs to be sold and given to Prigozhin, because the poor thing has suffered.

Listen, many people correctly advise: “Let Alexei announce a fundraiser for the fines. We will raise these billions, millions for a good cause in three days.” That could be a path.

It is quite possible that this is the path. It’s just that now these processes are ongoing every day, they keep increasing, so I cannot even say how much needs to be raised. Do we need to raise 100 million, or will some amounts still be reduced there. Therefore, for now we proceed from the fact that we are raising money for activities. That is, we still raise money, we need it. We raise money for investigations, for the work of the headquarters, for the ACF. When all these court cases end and bailiffs are running around us shouting that “we are seizing everything!” — then we will make a decision, and I do not know what that decision will be. It is unclear for now.

I would like to touch on one more topic, if my co-host does not mind. This is also very thin ice. A topic that Alexei carefully avoids, does not like talking about.

So why the co-host? They didn’t ask me.

This is the topic of Crimea.

I do not avoid it at all. I adore talking about Crimea.

Since people who demand a direct answer to a difficult question…

I’ve heard this fifteen times already…

He still avoids the answer. Right?

I do not avoid the answer. It’s just that very difficult questions do not have very simple answers. Therefore, in general, my answer is that all of us are very sick of questions about Crimea and Ukraine, and I really do avoid them, because I do not want to follow Putin’s agenda. Putin would like everyone in the country, and especially the opposition, to run around every day, every hour and every second discussing Crimea, arguing on Facebook with Ukrainians who come running in, and so on. I am not going to do that and will not do that. Of course, what happened in 2014 was illegal. But we have already entered that part of politics where there are no simple solutions. There are two million people there with Russian passports. That is, it is already some incomprehensible minced mess. You cannot turn this minced mess back. Therefore, there is no simple solution to the Crimean problem. Apparently there is none at all, just as there is no solution to the Japanese islands. It does not sound like some simple, cool answer, but I am a person from real life, a person who is fighting for leading positions, a person who thinks about what he can do if he takes a leading position. So I say that if I take a leading position, I will hold in Crimea one more absolutely honest referendum. Not even one more, but the first one. Because that referendum cannot be considered a referendum. But I understand that such an answer will not please some number of Facebook inhabitants. Well, if they don’t like it — they don’t like it.

That’s not the point, not Facebook. There is still some kind of dead end here anyway. Because yes, fine, a referendum, but a referendum is held on an independent territory, not the territory of some state. If this is the territory of the Russian Federation, then the fate of Crimea should be decided by all citizens of the Russian Federation, not only the residents of Crimea. It does not work like that. Likewise, if we say that Crimea is Ukrainian territory, then that referendum should be held on the territory of Ukraine. A. Navalny: There is no simple solution to the Crimean problem

Therefore, we should not approach this from some casuistic point of view. One constitution says one thing, another says another. And there are people now sitting in the Kremlin who have spat on all constitutions and all laws. We must proceed from realities. Point number one, the starting point in this roadmap: to clearly find out what the people who live in this territory actually think. That is the starting point. I still live in Russia, I am a Russian politician, I represent the interests of all people who come to polling stations and have Russian passports in their hands. I must think about all these people.

Is there a Navalny headquarters in Crimea?

There is no headquarters. First of all, it is monstrously difficult to work in Crimea. Literally yesterday our people from the Belgorod headquarters were arrested there, who, as I understand it, had come to Crimea to film with a quadcopter the property of some Belgorod crook that he bought somewhere in Yevpatoria. They were absolutely illegally detained, everything was confiscated, they were jailed for several days. We do not even know any details. In that sense Crimea is, of course, an absolute lawless zone. It is impossible to conduct any political activity there.

Alexei, is the main activity of the ACF now investigations?

The activity of the ACF is investigations. The activity of our headquarters is also investigations, direct political work in the regions, on the ground. Elections right now were the main thing we were engaged in quite recently.

But the elections are already over. So when are the next elections?

There are always elections. Every year there is a single voting day. There will be another single voting day next September, including in major regions: Novosibirsk, Chelyabinsk region. There will be local elections there, but they are important too.

Let me take some questions. I gathered so many. Good people write…

I want to ask one question that Valery Solovey asked us to ask. And our listeners here are asking us too. Solovey said this off the air as well and asked us to ask Navalny. A certain group of non-party civic activists has now announced across all regions some kind of civic action…

An action of civic solidarity.

Protest for whatever you want against whatever you want.

Well, not like that. You are oversimplifying.

If you, I don’t know, in Tsarevokokshaysk, have your own problem there, then you protest for the solution of that problem…

Hold the actions that each of you holds at your own time, on one day.

What is the question exactly? That I, as you said, should in Tsarevokokshaysk hold what they want? I am for them holding it.

Yes, but it has to be supported.

Well, I support all people who hold actions for their rights, who fight for their rights. I don’t just say that I support them; our headquarters, which exist — I don’t know what this wonderful group of united people is, maybe it really is wonderful, and I think most likely it is wonderful — but we have real headquarters in 45 regions that every single day…

Monitor the situation.

They do not just monitor it. Most of these actions are organized by our headquarters.

A question from Alexandra Astakhova: “Can the ACF and Alexei win in the ECHR if they do not pay the insane fines imposed on them?” A. Navalny: If I take a leading position, I will hold in Crimea an absolutely honest referendum

Winning or losing in the ECHR is not connected with paying specific fines. We go to the ECHR if our rights have been violated. The ECHR is the European Court of Human Rights. If our right to justice, a fair trial, or political persecution is involved — we go to the ECHR. If we prove it, we win. It is not connected with what Russia does there.

And have you already had victories in the European Court?

Of course. I think this may sound a bit boastful, but among individual citizens of Russia hardly anyone has won more cases in the ECHR than I have.

Lesha, and regarding forms, let’s say, of protest, besides actions, political outings, pickets and so on. Such a form as a mass strike. In general, what the real trade union movement is famous for in all European countries, in America too. Is it possible to build some powerful political movement on that basis in our country?

An object of my pride is that we are the only political movement that actually interacts with such militant trade unions, of which there are very few. In particular, we support strikes. The strike of doctors in the Novgorod region — we were its main information sponsors. Everyone learned about that strike because we actively supported it from the very beginning. And we carefully monitor such actions and help them. About 9 months ago I announced, released a video, that we have a whole big project. We help all trade unions. Again, we want nothing from them. Again, to the question of my authoritarianism. I do not need trade unions to do something about us or even support the ACF. They fight for their rights. We said that we are ready to spend time, money, and lawyers’ work to help these trade unions. You asked a great question. Because without the active participation of trade unions, a political movement is always weak. In Russia trade unions traditionally do not exist. We are trying very hard to involve them, to help them. But people are terribly afraid, first of all. Secondly, they come and say: “We are on strike, and no one knows about it.” This is the problem we can solve, because when we join in, many people, millions, learn about it…

Well, that is what is called guild solidarity.

Exactly right.

Again, actors who came out for an actor — that is, generally speaking, the beginning of a trade union movement.

Several professions spoke out there. I think lawyers…

Even priests joined in.

By the way, then doctors and teachers also issued statements. The Doctors’ Alliance, which we supported, directly called on people to participate in rallies and actions. So we devote a lot of time to this. Colleagues in the opposition mock this, say that I am drifting somewhere to the left. But I do not think that helping trade unions is a drift to the left or to the right. Normal trade unions are in any country a huge sector of the political movement.

That is an incredibly powerful instrument of political struggle.

And they are not necessarily left-wing; there are right-wing trade unions too. Since you mentioned the church, have there never been attempts from their side or yours at some kind of cooperation or action, let’s say, of solidarity? A. Navalny: Crimea is an absolute lawless zone. It is impossible to conduct any political activity there

Actions — no. There have been many conversations. I have met different people.

But priests are different too.

There was even a mini-scandal several years ago. I met with Chaplin, and some photographs were published. A lot of people turned against me, how could I do that. But, let’s say, this contact exists constantly. Inside the church too there is a huge number of people dissatisfied that it has de facto simply turned into an instrument of the state. And let’s be honest, there is opposition there, but now this nomenklatura, the episcopate, one might say, of the Russian Orthodox Church, unfortunately, is in many ways people who simply do not believe in God. And, of course, inside the Russian Orthodox Church there are many, at the very least, dissatisfied with this situation. But this has never reached any kind of practical work. Still, it must be understood that priests are like soldiers: they are people absolutely dependent on their leadership. And only a few of them can say anything. Remember when recently clergy spoke out in support of political prisoners. Most of them were not from the Russian Orthodox Church. And those who were from the Russian Orthodox Church were later somehow punished by the leadership.

And have you never done investigations inside the Russian Orthodox Church?

We are watching closely, but for now… I never comment on our investigation plans, let’s put it that way.

A very specific and, it seems to me, important question. Our female listener writes: “How can one support the ACF if one has a Russian passport but lives permanently abroad and has no account in a Russian bank?”

Morally. If you had an account in a Russian bank, then you could support us materially as well. It’s just that now, you know, they have hung this label “foreign agent” on us, staged a provocation, transferred money to us from Spain into a blocked account, and we could not return it. That is, if you are a citizen of Russia, you can help us, you can give us money. But if you send it to us from a foreign account now, we will simply have to return it. Unfortunately, that is how the law is arranged.

But the account was unblocked?

It’s endless: we unblock it — they block it again.

Or you yourselves do not know?..

We know. Again, I will not comment on all this in too much detail so as not to explain to people from the Investigative Committee, who listen very carefully to our interviews, how to fight us effectively. It is very hard for us now to choose, because it is hard for us to raise money. And most importantly, even if we have money in the account, we cannot send it to a person because their account is blocked. Because child benefits, survivor benefits, and so on are blocked. Just a bunch of people… Some of them are not connected with us at all. Their personal accounts were simply blocked and people cannot pay their loans, cannot go to the store with that card. It is blocked, that’s it.

Some woman is suffering there…

A huge number of people are suffering, because they never worked for us, never got anything from us. They receive a tiny pension. They simply blocked the card and that’s it. And then run around in your region proving that you have never even seen any Navalny in your life. There was just a case, I think, in the Omsk region. There literally the neighbors of our coordinator — their homes were searched and their equipment seized. Just neighbors. A. Navalny: Without the active participation of trade unions, a political movement is always weak

Alexei. There will be 2021, right? Will the elections be an event for you?

Of course. In 2021 there will be events both for me and, I hope, for you and for everyone, because in 2021 United Russia will again want to obtain and strengthen its majority in the State Duma, as they wanted in the Moscow City Duma. Moreover, in 2021 everything will be more complicated, probably more interesting for us, because they have already seen our “Smart Voting” strategy, they will come up with something about it, invent something cunning. And our common task is to use any element of political struggle. I am not saying that elections are the most important thing, but we definitely have to participate in them somehow and we have to fight United Russia. We’ll see. I always say that we consider every election separately. Some must and should be boycotted, in some we must participate. For now, from this time point and this territorial point, everything looks like in the 2021 elections we must crush United Russia. And I personally and my associates will do everything possible to at least rough them up.

A brilliant question: “Alexei, suppose the day comes when you defeat all the crooks and thieves and they resign. What will the ACF do?”

They will not resign. We will do what we will support charges in court for many, many years, because honest courts, we will send them to the dock, and then further.

There will be too much of all that.

When bright times come we will give everyone medals and send everyone home. You know, any army, sooner or later, must disperse to their apartments.

Listen, but in fact is there still hope that power in Russia can be changed peacefully?

The USSR changed peacefully, after all.

But that all came from above.

Well, how from above? Remember the demonstrations against Article 6 of the Constitution. Something came from above. Something came from below.

From above there was glasnost declared by Gorbachev. Society was prepared for that, for that exit. And now everything is exactly the opposite. A. Navalny: What Putin is doing, of course, is all leading to the collapse of the country.

There are absolutely different scenarios for the transfer of power. There are peaceful ones, there are non-peaceful ones. What Putin is doing, of course, is all leading to the collapse of the country. He is first leading it to economic collapse, first to economic stagnation, and it is already inevitable, it has already arrived. None of us has the slightest illusions that tomorrow we will live better than today. Stagnation has arrived. Economic collapse will inevitably follow it. And then there may be different scenarios. We all hope for a peaceful scenario, we are normal people. But unfortunately, this government is doing everything to reduce the probability of a peaceful scenario.

That scenario also depends, among other things, on how the 2021 elections go.

Many factors influence it.

We are preparing for the 2021 elections, in 2 years.

We are preparing. And today, here and now, we are doing everything necessary to weaken the position of this government.

Thank you! All the best.

Thank you!