The January 25, 2019 episode of the program “2019.” Navalny on trade unions and public-sector wages

Good evening! This is the program “2019.” Today the hosts are this lineup: Irina Vorobyova…

Vitaly Dymarsky.

Yes. So this is our new hosting duo today. And our frequent guest—though he hasn’t been on the air for quite a while—is here as well, so let’s introduce him right away. I was going to say politician Alexei Navalny, but in light of recent events I can now also say: trade union activist Alexei Navalny.

Hi, everyone!

We’ll explain that in a moment.

How stern! “We’ll explain that.” All right.

We’ll call Alexei Navalny to account.

Let’s do it.

We have…

Yes. The number for text messages is +7 985 970 45 45. You can also…

The vyzvon account.

Yes, you can write through the vyzvon account, via the website, or through the app. You can even try posting something in the YouTube chat, though I’m not sure I’ll see it—but I’ll do my best.

Why not?

A lot of people are watching and a lot of people are writing. So that may be a problem.

Well then, shall we start with that—with the explanation?

What was that? You want to ask: what kind of union is this, what’s all this about salaries? What is it?

It’s very simple. I’ll explain.

Putin’s decrees.

I want Russia to be a little less poor. And that has a practical application. When we say Russia is poor—well, to be completely frank, wages are very low for work that is paid much more even in Eastern Europe. In Russia, people are paid little. And this specific project we launched is our first step in fighting for wages: I want people to get back what they were promised. Because there are 6 million people in Russia—public-sector employees—whose salaries are guaranteed by Putin’s “May decrees” (a set of presidential decrees issued in May 2012). That was his main campaign promise in 2012: guys…

In 2012.

Yes. Dear public-sector workers, vote for me and your salary will be brought up to the regional average. That means—and I brought a cheat sheet with the figures—that a doctor in Moscow cannot be paid less than 164,000 rubles.

What?

What do you mean?

A. Navalny: A schoolteacher in Moscow cannot earn less than 82,000. And a university lecturer should earn 164,000

I can see Irina Vorobyova’s… It’s a pity radio listeners can’t see her eyebrows shooting up.

Yes. And my eyes getting huge. Explain.

I can say even more. A nurse in Moscow cannot earn less than 82,000, because according to Rosstat (Russia’s state statistics agency), the average salary in Moscow is 82,000 rubles. And public-sector wages are tied to that. On average, the salary of a nurse, a cultural institution worker, a teacher should be tied to it… A schoolteacher in Moscow cannot earn less than 82,000. And a university lecturer in Moscow, again, should average 164,000.

And how much do they actually earn now?

In reality, much less. Even if we look at Rosstat, we see lower figures. How much does a paramedic in Moscow earn? 25,000, 30,000, 35,000 rubles. But not 82,000, surely?

All right. Alexei, but beyond the numbers, why did you suddenly decide to take it upon yourself to fulfill Putin’s promises?

Because Putin doesn’t want to fulfill his promises. So I took on that mission.

But the promises were good ones.

They were good promises. It’s not some outrageous salary. It’s a normal salary. 82,000 rubles for a nurse living in the very expensive city of Moscow—that’s a normal salary for a full working day. And the point is, it was promised to her, guaranteed, money is allocated for it, but no one is delivering. There are 6 million people who have been staying silent for years. And everyone understands it’s a lie—nobody is paying such huge salaries. Moscow, at least, is one thing. Something is being done there. But take St. Petersburg. You’re in St. Petersburg often, right?

That’s an understatement! I live there.

Exactly. So tell me, please: does a doctor in St. Petersburg earn 118,000 rubles on average?

I don’t think so.

And does a nurse earn 60,000 rubles?

I don’t think so.

And does a kindergarten teacher earn 60,000 rubles? But that’s what they should earn on average, because that’s what the “May decrees” guarantee. And I, as you said—a politician, not a politician, a union leader—decided to do a simple thing, well, my team and I. There are these 6 million people. To be precise, 5.8 million.

These are public-sector workers?

These are exactly those public-sector workers whose salaries…

Across the whole country?

A. Navalny: Putin doesn’t want to fulfill his promises. So I took on that mission

Yes. Are regulated by the “May decrees.” So we will represent their interests. We will fight for them using different methods. When someone is shown on paper as earning 60,000, but in reality gets 35,000—well, we’re not going to stay silent; we’re going to make a scandal out of it.

Wait. How does this work? I went on the website. It asks you to choose one of the professions. Then it asked me… Well, I picked one hypothetically. Obviously I don’t work in that profession, but still. Then it asked whether I earn such-and-such amount of money. I said no. And then what? Am I offered the chance to file a complaint?

Yes, you’re offered the chance to file a complaint. You can write it yourself—our site will generate a complaint for you to various places, from the Prosecutor General’s Office to your local governor. Or maybe you don’t want to send it yourself—in that case our lawyers will write it on your behalf. Very often people are simply afraid…

A complaint about what?

Yes.

A complaint that the “May decree” is not being carried out.

That the decree isn’t being implemented.

Because this is the main fetish of the current Putin regime. He constantly says the decrees are being fulfilled.

There are already new decrees now.

More than that—today Peskov, my great friend, said something funny when he was asked about it. He said, “We welcome all monitoring systems.” Why did he say that? Because Putin has said a hundred million times that the “May decrees” are being fulfilled. And they cannot officially admit that in St. Petersburg a nurse earns not 60,000 rubles but 25,000. They simply cannot admit it. And this is how it works. Let me continue. If you’re afraid…

Yes, people are afraid.

If you’re a nurse and afraid that the chief doctor will simply fire you over complaints, then you write anonymously. And the unions we work with—the union organization itself—will then send appeals everywhere saying: inspect this hospital, there are nurses here earning less than they should. Of course it will be a difficult process: they’ll fob us off, they’ll ignore us.

They’ll carry out inspections.

Well, inspections that lead nowhere. But at least we’ll start moving the process. At the very least, we definitely won’t let them lie that they pay everyone well when in fact they pay everyone poorly.

Alexei, is this a sort of notional union, or an actual membership union? Is this an organization that will be officially registered somewhere—if unions are even supposed to be registered?

Well, what’s written on the site—“Navalny’s Union”—is of course a conventional name. But inside all this there are very real unions, genuine ones, with membership and registration. Interestingly, the law on trade unions actually says that a union… it literally says this… does not require state registration. We met, we voted, done. Right here, right now, we could call in Venediktov and create a journalists’ union—three people.

Why would we need Venediktov for that? Quite the opposite! A. Navalny: This is the main fetish of the current Putin regime. He constantly says the decrees are being fulfilled

We’ll expel Venediktov, yes.

We’ll be fighting him.

Exactly, he’s the employer and you’re the employees.

We’ll file a complaint against Venediktov right now.

No need, Vitaly Naumovich, no need.

I’ll defend your interests.

Easy now. Later.

In that sense, what became interesting to me was the huge number of letters I got saying, “Why did you take these 11 categories of workers and not others?” Do you know who writes the most? Firefighters, Emergency Ministry workers.

I’m not surprised. I was just about to ask.

It seems they’ve practically stopped being paid at all, because there’s a huge wave of messages from them and from their wives, interestingly: “My husband works as a firefighter. They’re barely paying him anything.”

Their workload is insane. And by the way, our listeners are asking about this on YouTube. But wait—you can’t just say that a doctor should earn 120,000 rubles. Doctors are different, their workloads are different, their qualifications are different—everything is different. How do you calculate it?

A hundred percent. So some can be paid more, some a little less. But if you’ve been guaranteed—for Moscow, again… They report 164,000. Fine, if her workload is lower, maybe she gets 140,000. But if she gets, excuse me, 50,000 when 164,000 was promised—that’s a serious violation. Whoever works more should earn more. But this is the average minimum that was promised.

Alexei, but on the other hand, look: a campaign promise isn’t a law that has to be obeyed.

In this case, it is a law. These are the “May decrees.”

Because politicians everywhere, in every country, promise things and very often don’t deliver. Is it only because these promises were formalized as decrees that you consider them law?

Let’s put it this way: Putin made many promises and fulfills none of them. But these “May decrees” on salaries are not just promises—they were, first, issued as decrees; and second, it has been repeatedly stated that they have been fulfilled. Do you know that United Russia even introduced a bill on criminal liability…

For failure to implement the decrees.

For failure to implement the salary provisions of the “May decrees.” In that sense, as I said, this is a sacred cow. They lie constantly. Putin says the salary-related “May decrees” are 93% fulfilled. So what we want to say—and are saying now—is: either pay up, or stop lying that you’ve fulfilled them.

Aren’t you afraid that in the end it’s the heads of fire stations who’ll suffer, even though it’s not their fault—they just aren’t given that much money; chief doctors who aren’t to blame either, and so on? That they’ll suffer, not the people who…

They definitely won’t suffer, because they…

They themselves earn less.

First of all, sometimes they really do earn less. And the heads of institutions write to us too. Governors who fail to implement the “May decrees” may suffer. Let them suffer. That’s their job. Their specific job is to carry out these “May decrees.” And Putin, again, bangs the table at every meeting and says: “We allocated the money. Why didn’t it reach medical workers?” So let them suffer. But the chief doctor here won’t suffer in any real way.

Irina and I were talking… I think there were even questions before the broadcast, right?

Yes.

That with this new kind of activity, I’d say, you’re somehow emphasizing a somewhat non-market character to these measures.

That’s a common misconception.

In short, you’ve become a leftist, Lesh.

Excellent! Thank you for asking that question!

Yes. I know. I was supposed to ask about the left. Go ahead.

This is very important, because it’s a long-standing, historic misconception of the Russian opposition: that being pro-market means these public-sector workers should basically starve to death, or that they should be paid little because they’re public-sector workers, they work for the state, so they should be poor by definition. And that the democratic opposition should be closer to oligarchs or wealthy people or the middle class, and shouldn’t defend the poor. I categorically disagree. And yes, I’ll say honestly: I do think the democratic opposition should move toward the center-left. Yes, that’s true. Russia is a poor country. And fighting for wages is a direct task of the opposition. The Democratic Party in the U.S., a rich capitalist country, fights for higher minimum wages—that’s one of its main demands. They fight for wages, and we absolutely should too. And this is entirely a market measure. What the state is doing now is what’s non-market, because the state is a monopolist, especially for public-sector workers. And it twists their arms precisely because that nurse in Tomsk Region has nowhere else to go work.

Yes. But the very form of a presidential decree on salaries is itself not a market measure.

How so? It is a market measure. If it’s a state hospital, then the state determines wages in that state hospital. The other issue is that the state has now swallowed 80% of the economy. Everything belongs to the state.

That’s exactly the point.

And the state is both monopolist and employer. That needs to be fought. In that sense, we should reduce the state’s influence. But if you’ve already taken over this hospital, and because it’s the only hospital you pay people three times less than you should, that’s not a market measure.

State economists—or economists working for the state—will answer you: “Fine, if we start paying what you want, that’s inflation.”

A. Navalny: The democratic opposition should move toward the center-left. Fighting for wages is a direct task of the opposition

I would tell those state economists to go to hell. Inflation is spending on Channel One and Channel Two. Inflation is spending on Solovyov. Inflation is the 700 million rubles allocated yet again to monitor something on the internet. Inflation is the Yarovaya laws (a package of anti-terror laws), which as we know will cost the economy not billions but trillions of rubles. In that sense, our state just throws money around. They gave Venezuela $17 billion.

Well yes. No surprise there.

Fine, if I don’t mention Venezuela…

We’ll talk about Venezuela.

Today it was announced that we’re giving Cuba $2 billion to restore its railways. Honestly, for crying out loud, how long can this go on? You’re underpaying people here and now. Pay the nurse in Moscow and St. Petersburg instead of giving money to Cuba.

So look: trade union activity, poor people, and so on. Is this a move away from political activity toward some kind of social advocacy work?

Does it look like I’m moving away from political activity?

Well, I don’t know. A union, all this stuff.

Is a union political?

In Russia today, everything is political. They banned political parties, they banned me from taking part in elections. Any activity by us is completely prohibited. And in that sense, any activity by any people doing something without the state is political. Vorobyova works with Liza Alert (a volunteer search-and-rescue organization) and runs through the woods looking for people. Is that political or not?

No.

Of course it’s political!

No. We’ve argued about this many times.

And every time you’re wrong.

And every time you’re wrong.

And every time you’re wrong.

You know what, sort that out between yourselves later.

Absolutely. It’s just that Alexei Navalny has been wrong about this for many years now.

Still, though, can we say—even though we already briefly touched on it—that this is in some way a repetition of the Wałęsa experience, when through the Solidarity trade union he ultimately came to political power?

Well, I’d put it this way: any authoritarian regime, at some stage of its development, will inevitably run up against trade unions, because it will suffer an economic failure and simply won’t have enough money to pay people. And the Solidarity trade union began with high meat prices, as we remember, and low wages. People came out and said: “Either make meat cheaper, please, or pay us decent wages.” And in Russia now, even without Poland and without Wałęsa—though of course we study that experience—the situation is exactly the same: people are being underpaid, they’re not organized in any way, they’re forbidden from organizing, they’re afraid. So someone has to step forward and say: “We’re not afraid. We’ll defend your interests.” I’m doing that.

Two questions from our listeners. First: “What do you say to people who argue this will lead to more layoffs, more closures, more optimization, which everyone is already sick of?”

I’d laugh at those objections. Because in Moscow, for example, how many clinics and hospitals has Sobyanin already shut down? Sixty, I think. Yashin has done videos on this…

So what? Let them close even more and it’s somehow not so bad?

They already… Look, we’re talking about now—2019. And the program is called “2019.”

Yes, so no one thinks we recorded this in 2018.

Exactly. They’ve already optimized and cut so much in Moscow that they can absolutely pay these salaries. After that, it’s no longer connected. That’s the point, especially when we’re talking about Moscow, with a budget of, let me remind you, 2.5 trillion rubles. This money for those high salaries for kindergarten teachers, schoolteachers, university lecturers is already budgeted somewhere. It’s already there. They just aren’t paying it.

Ir, you know what, let’s ask our listeners to text in—at least doctors, whether from Moscow or any other city—and tell us how much they earn. Just out of interest.

Let’s do that. Then I’ll calculate some kind of average…

Write to us. We’ll just fact-check Navalny.

That’s a great exercise. Right now Sobyanin is grabbing his phone and sending texts saying everyone earns 300,000.

+7 985 970 45 45 is the number for your text messages. If you’re a public-sector worker, send us how much you earn in Moscow.

Or in any other city. Other cities are even more telling. At least St. Petersburg.

Because Navalny has a list of cities. A. Navalny: We’re giving Cuba $2 billion to restore its railways. Honestly, for crying out loud, how long can this go on?

The second question our listeners ask is: “If someone complains and gets fired, will you help and defend them?”

Of course, yes. In that sense, trade unions… absolutely, we won’t allow them to be fired. We’ll fight for them. And the unions working with us fight for them too. In fact, that’s a big part of union activity. It’s based on exactly that: someone is the first to stick their neck out, and naturally the employer wants to devour them. Then people have to unite and defend their own. This is the long, long history of trade union development in many countries. It’s clear how to do this.

Alexei, are you shifting the emphasis to this activity away from anti-corruption work, or do the two go together?

They complement each other. We’ve expanded significantly now, increased our legal staff. So we’re not winding anything down. More than that, all these union and salary issues are already bringing us corruption stories. Because when you start figuring out why a hospital pays an orderly so little, of course the first thing you dig into is the hospital’s procurement—and there you see things that are very revealing…

And you see the National Guard.

Absolutely. Again, the National Guard. People write to us from the National Guard, from the Emergency Ministry. And you see, on the one hand, miserable salaries. On the other hand, insane, stupid, unimaginable spending on all kinds of nonsense.

Politician Alexei Navalny is with us on the air. Let me remind you to send in your salary information. All right, if everything is supposed to shift toward some kind of left-wing sector, then here’s a perfectly logical question. What about left-wing organizations… It’s the eternal question of alliances, but I mean working together in general.

At least cooperation.

“The Left Front,” Sergei Udaltsov, and so on—have you started cooperating with them on this?

We haven’t started cooperating with anyone, because nothing of the sort really exists in Russia. We started cooperating with trade unions.

Yes, but they mean political ones.

Independent ones.

Yes. Real independent ones.

Right.

Because in Russia, the sellout unions are actually called the Federation of Independent Trade Unions.

Ah yes. Shmakov’s.

Yes, Shmakov’s. They supported raising the pension age. There is a small number of genuinely militant unions. And we started cooperating with them first of all because they actually do something.

Where? In which sectors?

Medicine first and foremost, of course.

Are there independent unions there?

Yes. The best known is the Doctors’ Alliance. A genuinely militant union. We post videos about them, about how they…

I remember there were some among auto workers too.

Among locomotive crews, air traffic controllers. Russia does have real trade unions. But among public-sector workers there are fewer, of course, because public-sector workers are controlled. But they do exist, and we will work with them, we will help them. It’s not a simple process, but it’s being done and we’ll keep doing it.

To wrap up the union topic a bit, let me read some of the messages we’ve received. Yekaterinburg: doctor, salary dropped by 20,000 since June and is now 30,000 at most; nurses get 12,000.

Yekaterinburg. And how much should it be?

Well, in Yekaterinburg… I have Moscow and St. Petersburg here. But I can tell you more or less accurately that in Yekaterinburg a doctor should be earning around 80,000 on average, no less, and a nurse should be earning around 40,000.

Rostov-on-Don: kindergarten teacher—20,000. Nurse, St. Petersburg—12,000.

There you go. Let’s stop there. St. Petersburg. I have it written right here: medical staff in St. Petersburg—60,000. This person should be getting 59,200 on average. They might get a little less if they work less. But excuse me—not 15,000, not 12,000.

Obstetrician-gynecologist on 1.5 positions, Zelenograd—62,000 rubles.

Obstetrician-gynecologist. So that’s a doctor. Which means on one full position they should be getting 164,000 rubles.

Teacher, St. Petersburg—52,000. But that’s for a lot of hours, not a standard position. Oksana wrote that. And Lyudmila from Moscow…

And they should be getting more for one standard position.

Teacher—59,000 for a full position.

That’s exactly the point. You see, we started doing this not because I invented it, but because during the presidential campaign I traveled across the country, and at every meeting people told me: “They’re not paying us.”

Well, you did invent it, of course. Let’s be honest…

Well, I gave it structure.

Structured it. Yes, yes, of course.

But real life itself came up with it.

Alexei, still, Irina and I—as I understand it—and I think our listeners too, keep coming back to one question. Is this a move away from the purely political sphere into a relatively new one—the union sphere? Or at least let me ask it this way, since we’re on the program “2019” and it’s still January. Do you, for example, have some kind of electoral program for 2019? The elections in St. Petersburg and so on. Will you be taking part in the political process?

Absolutely yes, we will. And more actively than before. More actively than in the past couple of years. Since the period when I wasn’t registered for the presidential election, I called for a voter strike, for a boycott. But this season we have big plans, for September in particular. First of all, they’re connected with the Moscow City Duma elections. Secondly—and perhaps actually first of all—they’re connected with the elections for municipal deputies in St. Petersburg…

Governor.

A. Navalny: We have big plans for September. First of all, they’re connected with the Moscow City Duma elections

Yes, and governor. And with the Moscow City Duma in Moscow. There are also elections in Khabarovsk, in Vologda. There are important regions. But of course Moscow and St. Petersburg come first. In that sense, we are absolutely not leaving this format of struggle. The only thing is, they personally don’t let me anywhere. But that doesn’t mean we won’t support others.

Explain this. For the presidential election, which you were barred from, you boycotted, called for a boycott, criticized those who went to vote. Then Primorye happened, and other things, and you rushed in saying: “Come on, go vote.”

Yes.

How do you make the decision about whether people should vote or not?

And what about this season, in your view?

The decision is made on the basis that we are reasonable people, not robots given an algorithm—don’t participate in elections, and then never participate. When the election is not an election at all, and a boycott or voter strike would hurt the authorities more, then we boycott or call for a strike. When participation is needed, we participate. In that sense, it’s a flexible position. In Primorye we called for participation because, among other things, Ishchenko, the candidate who wasn’t allowed through, was calling for ballots to be spoiled, while we called for voting for anyone. In that sense, we’re looking for the right format. Take St. Petersburg, for example. There, of course, participation is absolutely necessary, and people need to vote for local deputies, because United Russia…

In the municipal elections.

In the municipal elections. United Russia controls 90% of the seats, which is simply ridiculous for St. Petersburg.

And there’s also the municipal filter on top of that.

The most opposition-minded city. Exactly! But we know how things work in St. Petersburg. As it gets closer, they’ll simply refuse to register anyone at all. Then we’ll have to sit down and think about what to do, because there are also the gubernatorial elections. Every time it’s an individual decision based on the actual circumstances, not just some stubbornness—either always boycott or always participate.

I have insider information from St. Petersburg…

Go on.

Of course you do!

That most likely, as many political analysts believe—and not only analysts—the opposition challenger to Beglov will be Ksenia Sobchak. Are you ready to support her?

I think that from Beglov’s point of view, for Beglov—a very weak candidate—to win, he of course needs someone even weaker and even stranger. Also, it matters to him that the candidate supported raising the pension age, because that’s now a key issue in elections. But as for the gubernatorial election in St. Petersburg, in that sense we are much freer. Sobchak won’t be the only one there.

Hard to say. But if she is?

Well, there will be a Communist candidate in any case, right? There will be a candidate from the LDPR, from A Just Russia, from the parliamentary parties.

So anyone at all, just not Sobchak.

No. Anyone at all, just not Beglov. The call will be to force a runoff. To force a runoff, people just need to come and vote for anyone other than Beglov. Sobchak? I don’t care.

And in the runoff: Sobchak against Beglov. Then what?

That’s unrealistic.

No, Lesh, that’s not an answer.

It’s an absolutely unrealistic scenario.

Sobchak against Beglov in the runoff.

Fine, and what if it’s Dzhigurda or Alexei Panin against Beglov?

Alexei!

Ir, I’m not going to discuss artificial hypotheticals, you understand. Fine, what if it’s Beglov’s double against Beglov? What if it’s Putin against Beglov?

Understood. So, in short, Alexei Navalny refuses to answer questions about Ksenia Sobchak.

Of course! Because Beglov and Putin want us sitting here discussing Ksenia Sobchak. And that’s a favorite pastime at Echo of Moscow radio. I’m not going to play your game.

We’ll soon find out whether this makes it into the news in a few seconds…

Of course it will!

In a few seconds. Let me remind you that this is the program “2019.” Our guest is politician Alexei Navalny. Of course we won’t have time for all your questions, but I’ll try very hard to get to some of them.

NEWS/ADS

Good evening once again! This is the program “2019.” Let me remind you that today there are two hosts: Irina Vorobyova and me, Vitaly Dymarsky. And our guest is politician and trade union activist—now that’s apparently how we can introduce him—Alexei Navalny.

You’re saying that rather ironically!

Well, just a little. Just a tiny bit.

Yes, hi everyone!

Remind us, Ira. +7 985 970 45 45 for your texts. The vyzvon account on Twitter. And on YouTube too, right?

Yes. You can also write via the website and the app. Plenty of options. Lesha, Alexei, tell me please: do you want things to be like Venezuela or like Paris?

How do I want things… Like Paris, of course! I definitely do not want things to be like Venezuela, because before all this happened in Venezuela—and it’s still unclear how it will end—the country had already sunk into a real economic catastrophe. Even the final years of the Soviet Union aren’t comparable. Ten percent of the population fled the country. People were fighting in lines over soap. It’s a real catastrophe.

A. Navalny: I welcome the fact that the head of the National Assembly proclaimed himself president in order to get out of this crisis

10,000% inflation.

Much more than that. The inflation there is simply unimaginable. In other words, they took a rich country and brought it right to the brink, to catastrophe. Some paramilitary gangs working for Maduro attack people. Clashes involving killings. In that sense, people have simply come out in desperation. They’ve been coming out since 2017. For two years straight they’ve been taking to the streets and demanding change. Maduro was managing to cope with it for a while, but now apparently he can’t. And I certainly welcome the fact that a fully legitimate politician, the head of the National Assembly, proclaimed himself president in order to get the country out of this mess, out of this crisis.

Yes, it’s hard to call him an impostor.

Absolutely! And the fact that the Kremlin is lying now—Medvedev and Putin too. Medvedev is tweeting, calling the speaker of parliament an impostor. Although if anyone is really an impostor, it’s Medvedev. There is only one legitimate branch there—the elected parliament, where the opposition won in competitive elections. And now they’re trying to take power into their own hands. It’ll be some difficult process.

Why do you think Russia—Moscow, the Kremlin—has taken this position of supporting Maduro? Is it simply support for the investments already made there? Maybe they just feel bad about the money they poured into Maduro?

Well, it seems to me…

Or is it ideological, political affinity?

When they invested that money, it was obvious we’d never get it back. We just forgave Cuba $31 billion and gave Venezuela $17 billion. It was obvious it wouldn’t be repaid. But this is a kind of international of authoritarian leaders. Putin wants to support other people who have also been in power for 20 years, who have grabbed everything, who treat the people’s oil as their own personal property, who use the budget to enrich their friends. He wants to show that this is a normal way to govern a country.

So in that way it’s a legitimation of himself, yes?

Exactly. He supports them in order to support himself. Look who we’re friends with: Zimbabwe, Venezuela, Cuba. Naturally Assad is our main buddy, and we spare nothing for him. No money will go to Voronezh, but in Syria we’ll repair roads. In that sense, Putin sees himself in all of them, wants to save them, wants to help them. And of course this is all happening at our expense. And Irina criticized me in the first half of the program for bringing up once again the $17 billion we gave Venezuela, but that’s 7,500 rubles for every citizen of Russia. It’s impossible not to talk about it. It’s a truly staggering amount. Simply staggering.

Including, apparently, money that could have gone toward implementing the “May decrees.”

Of course! Absolutely! That’s more than our annual budget for education and healthcare. Significantly more.

An unexpected question. Sorry. The Anti-Corruption Foundation is a non-profit organization.

Yes.

On the Anti-Corruption Foundation website there’s a tab called “report.”

Yes.

When you open it, month by month and so on it says: we did this investigation, we made this film, this film, this film. Is there… Maybe I just didn’t find it and searched badly. Where is the spending report, like all NGOs have?

There is a spending report there. In fact, at our last editorial meeting we discussed when the report for the last year would come out. It usually comes out around April. And in April the report for 2018 will be published. You searched badly. There are definitely reports there with all the expenditures.

Do you report to the Justice Ministry?

Of course! First of all, we report to the Justice Ministry. But we report to the people who matter much more to us than the Justice Ministry—the people who fund us. Because if we don’t report, we won’t get those donations. And without donations, the Anti-Corruption Foundation cannot exist.

Exclusively crowdfunding?

Of course! We take this very seriously, because if people stop supporting us and stop trusting us, the Anti-Corruption Foundation will cease to exist, because that is our only source of income. And that is precisely the guarantee that we conduct our work completely independently. We don’t care about anyone. We don’t take money from… There is no rich person we go to, because we have several thousand—many thousands—of people who send us 500 rubles each.

A. Navalny: Putin wants to support others who have also been in power for 20 years, who have grabbed everything

And wealthy people don’t sponsor you? No large payments come in?

Unfortunately, no. Well, large payments… there are payments over 10,000 rubles.

And are the payments anonymous or…?

No. That’s impossible under the law.

You can’t, right?

Everything is very clear-cut for us in that sense.

So if someone wants to support you but doesn’t want to be publicly visible, they can’t do that?

No.

No, they can’t.

They could ask Vorobyova to send us the money. In other words, ask a braver person.

From her own bank card.

Have people asked you, Ir?

Me? No.

Anyway, there aren’t really big sums. We do have Boris Zimin, a long-time open sponsor, who transfers…

Dmitry Borisovich’s son.

Yes, exactly. He sends us 300,000 a month—that’s the largest donation we have.

That’s personal money, right?

Yes, his personal money, of course. As a citizen of Russia.

The investigations carried out by the Anti-Corruption Foundation—you regularly publish things. Did anything come of any of the investigations from 2018, for example? Any criminal case, anyone removed from office?

Echoes, repercussions.

Yes.

Practical effects as well as informational noise.

Our investigations leave a big mark. Today I was watching speeches in the State Duma… Yesterday they did finally vote for that law…

Klishas’s?

Yes, Klishas’s law on insulting the authorities. All the Communist deputies who were against it said: “Klishas, what the hell! He has a 9,000-square-meter house!” I understand that they watched our investigation. But let’s be honest, guys. When we release an investigation against an official, Putin will never dismiss that official on principle.

So in that sense you protect him.

Not exactly protect. Take Yakunin, for example. Of course Yakunin, the head of Russian Railways, was removed because we released a series of investigations. But that happened…

The fur storage.

The fur storage. There was a lot there.

That’s what people remember.

We exposed his whole offshore empire. But he was removed two years later, because Putin cannot allow himself to show weakness, as he sees it.

And to be seen following your investigations.

Yes. But our investigations change society in general. They change attitudes in society. Medvedev’s collapsed approval rating—he is now the most unpopular politician in the country—is to a large extent due to the investigation “Don’t Call Him Dimon” (“He Is Not Dimon to You”), because people saw it. They compared their own way of life to those famous dachas.

Wait, what about the recent events around Vladimir Putin’s rating—the lowest in his history—is that the ACF too?

Well, it’s a combination of things.

It’s a combination of factors. Mainly, it’s Vladimir Putin himself. Mainly, it’s what we discussed in the first half of the program. Vladimir Putin spent all the money on Venezuela and doesn’t pay doctors, nurses, and kindergarten teachers. Putin’s low, now fallen approval rating—that’s Putin’s own achievement, of course. It can’t really be measured. But we have opened many people’s eyes to who Putin is, who the people around him are, who his ministers are, and how they live.

But you’re accused of opening people’s eyes to far from everyone in Putin’s circle. To put it diplomatically.

Well then, tell us who… Show us someone and we’ll do it.

No, but the point is that some oligarchs or people resembling oligarchs become targets of your investigations, while others somehow remain on the sidelines.

The thing is… Fine. Tell me who’s on the sidelines.

Well, you know perfectly well that people mention, for example, Igor Ivanovich Sechin.

No one has written more about Sechin than I have. Even back when I was a Rosneft shareholder, when he had just arrived and become chairman of the board, I was already fighting Sechin. In that sense, poor Sechin has suffered a lot from us.

But back then he suffered because of Novaya Gazeta.

Well, the chat is helping us here: Surkov, Chemezov, for example. I’m just reading what people in the chat are suggesting.

Putin’s inner circle is corrupt through and through. There are several dozen people there.

So you could take anyone.

Absolutely anyone. But we are still a non-profit organization—our capacities are limited. We’re not an intelligence service. But we’re gradually getting to everyone. We publish the information we can find. But yes, of course—like you said—Chemezov, Surkov, yes. They are multimillionaires. They are billionaires involved in corruption. But for us to uncover that corruption, it takes several months. And we are a relatively small organization that can run two, three, five investigations at once—but not seventy.

You know, Alexei, people say that Putin personally, or some of his aides, or someone in the security services… you know, they say there’s a file on everyone, even the people closest to power.

Of course.

Do you think your investigations end up in those files? I don’t know who keeps them.

I think yes. Definitely yes. I’m convinced that Russia’s security services, first of all, have no orders to investigate corruption. And second, from the example of those famous Chepiga… those two from the box, right?—we see how the Russian security services are organized, and their level of professionalism. I think that of course, in searching for compromising material on people, they also copy our investigations into those files. Because Putin’s way of governing is to surround himself only with people who are compromised, people who could justifiably be jailed at any moment.

A. Navalny: If people stop supporting us and stop trusting us, the ACF will cease to exist

And then pull out the file.

And that’s why they’re always on the hook. And our investigations are an extra hook, of course.

Politician Alexei Navalny is with us on the air. Is there at least one politician in Russia about whom you can say something kind, good, and constructive?

A million!

For example?

We don’t have much time left, otherwise I’d just spend an hour listing them.

Well, for example?

Listen, in Moscow— Ilya Yashin, Vladimir Milov. The people who work around me: Sobol, Zhdanov, Lyaskin, Volkov…

That doesn’t count. They all work with you.

What do you mean it doesn’t count? They’re all great. Well, they work with me…

No, they’re wonderful, but I mean people from other parties.

Because they’re great, the best politicians. And I try to gather people like that. But Yashin and Milov, for example, don’t work at the ACF. But they work with me because they’re wonderful. Yankauskas—he doesn’t work at the ACF.

A municipal deputy.

He’s a deputy in Zyuzino. There are great politicians in St. Petersburg. There are huge numbers of them all over the country. We have 42 regional offices across the country. And in all 42 of them there are absolutely wonderful, fantastic people who, in their own regions—where the pressure on opposition activists is 100 times greater than in Moscow—still manage to do amazing things.

And Khodorkovsky?

Khodorkovsky—yes, absolutely, he’s someone who does a lot. There are things he does that I like; there are things I don’t like.

And he doesn’t help the Foundation?

No. He’s involved with Open Russia. But we couldn’t accept help from him anyway, because…

From abroad.

Because it would be from abroad. And that’s legally impossible. And besides, why would we need that?

What do you mean? So was that just now… Are you saying you’re afraid to receive help from Khodorkovsky? There would be problems?

Not that I’m afraid. I simply see that he’s abroad. And if he transfers money from abroad, we’ll be running around dealing with the tax authorities and everyone else. Fortunately, we have enough people in Russia to keep us going—not richly, but sufficiently for us to continue our work.

Another question about your investigations and about rich people, poor people… You touched on this when talking about Medvedev. Many people have the impression that with these investigations, videos, posts, and broadcasts, you’re simply turning poor people against rich people, regardless of whether they’re officials or not.

And who are the rich and poor in Russia?

Rich businesspeople.

Russia is structured in such a way that… In reality, no businesspeople in Russia are truly rich. The truly rich people in the country are 500 families—or maybe 1,000 families—who are connected to power in one way or another: oligarchs and so on. Everyone else is poor. Even those mid-level businesspeople are poor. In the sense that in a normal situation they would be much wealthier. Russia has 22 million people living below the poverty line. Of course, absolutely, I am turning each of them against someone like Shuvalov, who has, frankly, driven everyone crazy buying palaces and apartments. Of course I am turning them against Vladimir Solovyov, who feeds those poor people nonsense while at the same time buying a first, second, third, tenth palace…

Well, by the way, he answered you.

What did he say?

“I’m not a big…”

He said it was legal.

He said yes, he hadn’t broken any laws. He said: “Yes, I earn a lot.”

Excellent! And I am turning everyone against that hypocritical position. What does “I earn” mean? He lies on television with my money.

Everyone has their own job, Alexei. He’s not an official.

He gets paid to lie.

That’s not a job. It’s a crime. An organized criminal group has seized power in my country. They have a specific man assigned the role of liar in this criminal group. He appears on Channel Two, he is paid unimaginable sums, and with that money he buys a villa in Italy. Absolutely, Irina…

He said he loves NRZB.

A. Navalny: Medvedev’s collapsed approval rating is to a large extent due to the investigation “He Is Not Dimon to You”; people saw it

You probably thought I was going to say: “No, I don’t turn the poor against the rich.”

Yes, I would have liked you to say that.

I turn the poor—and even the rich—against Vladimir Solovyov. I do. And I think they should fight him. Him, Shuvalov, Medvedev, and Putin.

And turn them toward what? What does “fight” mean? How do you fight Solovyov?

By not believing them. By voting against them. By protesting against them. By trying to remove them from power—them, and their governors, and their mayors, and so on and so forth. And there’s a positive program too: let them vote against them, but for me.

And about voting against United Russia, which was also published—that piece “How We Will Defeat United Russia.”

Smart Voting.

To be honest, I didn’t understand anything at all. Can you explain what the…?

What do you mean?

It’s very bad that you didn’t understand.

Really?

Well, then I probably explained it badly.

Yes.

It’s simple. Look. We started discussing St. Petersburg here, right? And this works for Moscow too. What turnout will there be in the Moscow elections? We understand it will be 20%. In St. Petersburg, given the gubernatorial election, maybe 25–30% at most. And in that sense we understand that if we agree among ourselves, there are enough of us to elect any candidate. But we’ll all vote in different directions: Vorobyova for one candidate, Dymarsky for another, and I for a third. So my proposal is simple. Let’s agree among ourselves, guys, let’s make a list. And when we vote in a consolidated way for one person, the math shows that just 5–7% of voters is enough for us to defeat United Russia candidates. Because masses of people already don’t want to vote for United Russia. In 2007 this wouldn’t have worked.

So you agree to coordinating lists, yes?

Of course, yes.

With others…

That’s the whole point—that we come to an agreement. It’s just that when we say “coordinate lists with other representatives,” that’s a somewhat utopian idea, because never in history…

It’s never worked.

…has it worked.

No, it has worked.

No.

It has never worked.

Never.

So my proposal is that it shouldn’t be politicians who come to an agreement, but us—you and me. We should look at who is stronger…

Wait, but you’re a politician. What do you mean “you and me”? How does that work?

Well, politicians… Not the ones participating. It works exactly like this.

Ah, so politicians and voters.

We ourselves will simply make a list of the strongest candidates and vote for them.

That means—I think this follows from your words—that Navalny, or Navalny with his staff, will draw up this list and publish it.

Will explain it to you. And you’ll agree with my logic. But Navalny will compile it according to rules. Not just because I say…

They’re all mine.

Yes, they’re all mine. Or: I like these, I don’t like those. There will be clear criteria. There will be a clear explanation. And I assure you, when you see why we selected such a list, you’ll agree with it. After that, we all have to vote together for one person.

Alexei, a question. Let’s go back to the presidency.

Go ahead.

How do you see it… People are discussing various ways Putin might try to stay in power after 2024. First, do you believe that is what will happen? And second, in your view, what path might the authorities take to extend Putin’s time in power?

I’m convinced that is what will happen. And I cannot imagine any other scenario in which Putin gives up power. Putin’s plan is to remain president or head of state, to control power until he dies. I don’t even think they need any option involving some kind of parliamentary republic…

Like with Belarus…

The Belarus option is more realistic. He could say: “Well, I used to be president of Russia, and now for another 12 years I’ll be president of Russia and Belarus.” Something like that is entirely plausible. But I think they’ll simply abolish all term limits. At the request of the working people, Volodin will introduce a bill abolishing any restrictions on the length of time one can serve as president, after which, to the joyful applause of all the United Russia deputies, the law will be passed. And Putin will come out and say: “Well, I didn’t want this. But you know, the people are asking.”

Like a galley slave.

Yes. “I toil away. I’d like to go plant potatoes and play hockey, but I cannot refuse you, people. So I will remain in power for another 145 years.”

How do you feel about the fact that your supporters react very sharply whenever anyone even tries to ask you a question—even on the air at Echo of Moscow—and ask people to stop picking on you and stop asking difficult questions? This happens all the time on social media.

But you are asking me sharp questions.

No, how do you feel about that position?

I’m grateful to all supporters who support me. They’re great, wonderful people. Supporters are different. I can’t control them. And I assure you, I’m not asking any supporters to write anything to you on Twitter. But once again I appeal to all supporters, and to you, Irina, and to you, Vitaly, and I want to say that I love answering tough questions. I adore it. Ask away! What tough question? Go on, Irina, I’ll answer it right now.

Irina, people always get offended on behalf of politicians. How many messages come from Yabloko saying: “Why are you offending our Yabloko?”

Oh, let’s not do that now. After Sobchak, let’s not bring Yabloko into this. Don’t.

No, I’m actually on quite good terms with Grigory Alexeyevich. The last time we saw each other, we hugged and kissed.

Wonderful! A question that’s almost not about politics. Do you feel responsible for what later happened to Nastya Rybka?

Yes, of course! That’s exactly why I wrote that post, with what were almost threats at the end. And I’m convinced that our small investigation about the involvement… that publication of the wiretap—which we didn’t make, it was sent to us—was important, because it showed: leave her alone already, she’s not the main villain in this story.

Do you know who sent it to you?

No, well, we assume it was some FSB people. It was signed “a friend.” But I think it’s unlikely some friend…

And how did you verify that wiretap?

As I wrote in the post, we didn’t even… It was sent to us two months ago. We didn’t do anything with it. It had been sitting on YouTube. You can check—it was publicly available on YouTube for two months. But only after Deripaska himself demanded that Roskomnadzor block it did we get legal proof that it was Deripaska’s wiretap.

Well then.

What are they asking?

Oh, actually they’re asking about a lot of things: Ukraine, Syria. And about Sergei Brilyov too, by the way—they say there was an investigation into Sergei Brilyov and it led nowhere.

There you go. Peskov said Sergei Brilyov is the greatest patriot. More than that, Sergei Brilyov, as a British citizen—as I wrote—has no right to be, for example, on the Public Council of the Interior Ministry. We got a reply from the Public Council of the Interior Ministry saying no law had been broken. It’s unbelievable! The man has already admitted it himself: “I’m a foreign citizen.” And the Public Council says: “We don’t care. Foreign citizen, so what?”

Is it actually written somewhere that he’s not allowed?

There’s a direct prohibition.

Yes, a direct prohibition.

Look, they jail Open Russia, Khodorkovsky’s people, for being members of some foreign…

Undesirable organization.

An undesirable organization. But here we have a foreign citizen, a British citizen—though Britain is supposedly the greatest evil on television right now—sitting on the Public Council of the Interior Ministry, and he was on the Public Council of the Defense Ministry. And it’s all fine. Nobody pays attention.

Listen, if… You refuse, of course, to comment on fantastical scenarios like this, right? But what if tomorrow Navalny were offered a government post?

Navalny will get a government post—or not get one—as the result of an election. If Russia has fair elections, I will run in them and get that post if I can persuade you to vote for me.

So not as a minister, hypothetically… A. Navalny: An organized criminal group has seized power in my country. They have a specific man assigned the role of liar in this criminal group

Or prime minister, for example.

In Putin’s current system of power… As you rightly said, first of all, that is an absolutely impossible scenario.

Just like Sobchak in the runoff, yes?

Even more impossible. The prime minister in Russia is no one at all. Who is Medvedev? He’s simply nobody. Putin runs everything. He makes all the decisions. He is the foundation of this power. This power rests on his personal charisma, which he unquestionably has. Everyone else is just who-knows-what.

So you want to rule.

I want Russia to be in a situation where there is political competition, where there are elections. You run, you get elected? Good for you. You don’t get elected? Then wait and do better work.

Twenty seconds to address listeners once again about the union.

I would like people not to be afraid to defend their rights. And if you yourself are a public-sector worker, or have a relative who is, and if you are being underpaid, understand that it is not shameful, not scary, and not disgraceful to work with us in order to force this government to pay you what it already promised you and what is already budgeted. So go to union.navalny.com.

Will you be reporting in some way on your union activities?

Yes, absolutely. Of course. Otherwise people won’t support us.

That’s it, we’re out of time.

Thank you!

Alexei Navalny. Thank you!

All the best!