The Sixth Meeting of the Opposition Coordination Council

We need to run over there.

Understood.

Colleagues, you have a quorum of 27 people. And

we are opening the session.

The first item concerns the agenda.

Let's

vote on whether we adopt the agenda,

which has just been distributed, as the basis.

I would like to propose right away, on my own behalf,

that items 5 and 12 could be combined here,

which concerns the budget committee. And

in the supplementary materials these items

have already been combined.

Yes, agreed.

Yes. We adopt it as the basis. Yes. Is there

anyone who is against?

Amendments. Amendments. More addi- more

are possible.

Well, excuse me, I asked the executive secretary

to add to the agenda the issue

of executive secretaries. Well, in that

wording it is not here. I ask that it be

included.

Let's adopt it as the basis first, and then introduce

all proposals.

It was requested after the agenda had already been sent out to everyone

for the meeting. Thus, at this moment

you can introduce it and put it to

a vote.

So, does anyone have proposals regarding

issues that are not reflected here

in the agenda, or proposals

as to whether perhaps some

issues that we have already

considered repeatedly at meetings of the

Coordination Council, should perhaps be removed and postponed

to Demography 2. And to put

the issue to a vote for consideration

as the third item on the agenda, and in view

of the particular importance of the issue of adopting

a resolution and statement by the Investigative Committee

regarding the authorities of the city of Moscow

concerning the events of May 6. And this resolution

and statement were distributed yesterday to all

members and executive secretaries.

Look, it also wasn't possible to include it in the agenda

in time, because, well,

the issue was sent in.

Are we adopting this decision, then?

Let's make it the fourth item.

Let's make it third.

Let's make it third.

Understood. The third item, then, is the issue concerning

the statement by the Investigative Committee. Uh,

Andrey Varov.

I already raised this issue at the previous meeting.

Items 4, 6, and in general

I propose removing them, or moving them there?

Well, I think it's a debatable issue. Let's

put it to a vote. Is there anyone

who wants to speak on this?

Yes. First of all, regarding the resolution

on Kvachkov. A new one, well, this new resolution,

went through the human rights committee. We

met, and the committee approved it.

Then is the matter put to a vote, or

does anyone else want to speak on this

matter?

So then, we vote afterward,

that is, the motion reads as follows: we remove from

the agenda the items numbered

4, 6, and

May I say one more thing?

Yes.

If I may speak, Nikolai, I

urge you. I voted three times in favor of

the issue of the resolution on Kvachkov. Three times

I voted for it. But now I also

support removing this issue from

consideration, because it will not pass. And, well,

there is no point in twisting everyone's arm

any further. Are we really going to bring this up at every meeting of the Coordination Council

? Let's do it at an

absentee vote as much as you like, until you're blue in the face,

but at an in-person meeting, it seems to me

it's pointless. And, well, it's like an Italian

strike. You had three issues of your own,

which we did not adopt, and you brought them up

a second time, a third time. But

next time it will be a fourth time, a

fifth time; that, it seems to me, is the wrong

tactic. They still will not pass,

so I urge you to withdraw them yourself

please. Well, thank you for the appeal, but

nevertheless, I believe that this

issue should remain, because

I emphasize once again, the resolution on

Kvachkov is new wording, drafted by

lawyer Mikhalkov; all of this

took place at the group's meeting. The group

met in the human rights

committee, and the group approved this resolution.

Therefore, of course, it should remain

on the agenda and be discussed. Also,

let's say, yesterday there was this meeting of the group

on IT, well, the information

group, yes, and, say, the issue of

creating an official page and group

on VKontakte (a Russian social network) and other social networks. It

was discussed; true, there was no quorum, but

as I understood it, everyone agreed that

yes, this really does need

to be done, so I also insisted

that all these issues can be

discussed. Thank you.

So, we are putting this matter to a vote. I

only have one question as the chair

regarding procedure. So this is

a procedural matter, right?

All right. Putting it to a vote. Who is in favor

of excluding these items from

the agenda?

468

468.

[music]

Accordingly, the motion did not pass. These

items remain on the agenda. Who has

What other additions are there to the agenda?

Sergei,

I propose removing item thirteen from

the agenda because discussing it is obviously pointless

in principle.

Akimi, do you have any objections?

Dvoy proposes removing the item from the agenda

.

All right. Let's put it to a vote.

I also want to speak. First of all, the question

of the Coordination Council's symbols is not

unworthy of discussion, because we

don't have any symbols. We need to decide whether

we need them or not. If we do, then what should they be? Yes,

that's the first point. Second, Polcha's question

about registering

a trademark before our opponents do,

right? I remember it was proposed before, wasn't it?

So right now I think the issue is quite

serious; there is a lot to say, and

we do have something to express. I think

this could drag on for 10 hours, right? The issue

is serious; the Coordination Council

of the Russian opposition is an important matter.

What are you talking about? What is

behind your wish to remove

this item? Is it no longer relevant, or

what?

Yes. By the pointlessness of discussing this

issue.

That's what you think? I also propose...

Let's not start a debate right now.

Andrei,

dear colleagues, on this issue we

have, as you know, had

a certain exchange of views in correspondence,

which showed that discussing this

issue in person is necessary.

Uh, the results of this discussion,

naturally, cannot be predicted.

Although I have an idea of what

they might be, the very fact of this exchange

of opinions shows that this issue

deserves discussion.

Sergei,

I would like to draw attention to the fact that this

item on the agenda is worded

as follows: the issue of the CC's symbols, then

speaker Polcha — all of that together

forms some kind of package. This

seems absolutely impossible to me.

Mr. Polchvik demonstrated in the correspondence that

he is handling this issue in a purely

humorous — I would even say

fantastical — vein. This kind of

discussion is undoubtedly inappropriate here at this serious

meeting, because

we must not, uh, allow the possibility

of turning this into a farce. Therefore I

urge that this issue not be considered

in this form, and that we, uh, find a speaker

capable of discussing this

issue seriously, if such a willing person

can indeed be found. Thank you. Ah,

all right. Let's put the matter to a vote.

Who is in favor of removing item thirteen

from the agenda? Let's vote.

[music]

The motion is carried.

Ah, now we put to a vote the adoption of

the agenda as a whole.

One second, excuse me. As a whole?

What about my

At some point you already said we should vote

on it,

right? Fine. No, I am against

putting it to a vote at all, because I

submitted it in advance. And in accordance with

the rules, if you are referring to them, respected

secretary, no later than

3 days in advance you were obliged to circulate it. That is,

the last day was the day before yesterday, if I

remember correctly, and you sent this item out at

8:00 p.m. yesterday. What is going on here?

Just note that the last day

when you were supposed to circulate the agenda

was the day before yesterday. You sent it yesterday,

so this is all happening late.

What is going on? Yes, indeed.

Ah, all right. We put to a vote the question

of including on the agenda the issue of

the secretary's responsibility.

Ah, well, let's vote then.

Who is in favor of putting the issue of the

executive secretary on the agenda

for the meeting? Yes, why is it being put

to a vote now? I didn't submit it just now, I

submitted it in advance, and it should already be

on this agenda. So now you are

removing this item. Why? I am not

removing it. I do not want it

to be voted on. I want it simply

to be included.

Let's vote. Listen, could

the chair conduct the meeting, rather than you

speaking from your seat?

Well then, let's put it to

a vote after all. It seems endless to me.

Excuse me, please, since this

issue concerns me, I will allow myself to give

a clarification. The item was sent yesterday in

the form of a proposed agenda addition yesterday at 7:00

or 8:00 p.m., after the basic agenda

had already been distributed to everyone.

Mm-hmm. In that connection,

I could not include it, just as

for example Lyubov sent hers after

we had already sent everything out. We included it

now as an additional item. That is,

it can be included; no one forbids that.

I have a compromise option. I saw

yesterday that it really was circulated

in the evening, but there is still no draft resolution

at all. Let's consider it under 'Miscellaneous'

instead. Here everything

has already been removed. Understood.

There is still no draft resolution. If there were

a draft resolution, I would be in favor of

was on the agenda. No decision has been made; it can be postponed

Is anyone opposed?

Let’s vote to adopt

the agenda as a whole today.

Who is in favor of adopting the agenda for

a vote as a whole?

The motion is carried. We move on to

considering the items. The first item is

the issue of holding spring protest

actions. The speaker is Tsarkov.

Dear colleagues,

the working group on organizing

protest actions has met repeatedly

to discuss the upcoming events.

We are now ready to present the program

of actions for the upcoming period, the main

event of which will be the rally

marking the anniversary of the events on Bolotnaya Square (site of the 2012 protest in Moscow).

Let me tell you about the program we have developed

step by step.

Uh, the first event that we

propose

to include in this program is, um, the International

Day of Joint Action for the Release of

Russian political prisoners. On April 6, at

a meeting of our working group,

representatives of various

public organizations were present, including

the May 6 Committee. Therefore, we decided

to join forces and hold in

central Moscow on April 6 an action in support of

political prisoners.

Naturally, at this action, uh, the issue of

the May 6 prisoners will be the main focus.

We, uh, plan to organize a collection of

letters that anyone who wishes can

write. We will pass them on to the guys

being held in pretrial detention centers. And, of course, anyone

who wishes can donate money to support

them.

Also, uh, we are organizing

a photo exhibition dedicated to the events on

Bolotnaya. Uh, we are working on the script for

a small performance. If it turns out

to be interesting enough, we will

stage it, and there will be a small

theatrical presentation on

the corresponding theme of

[music]

support for the Bolotnaya prisoners.

Uh, I think that

tentatively, the venue for holding

this event, well, of course depends

on many factors, but we will

try to secure approval for one of the central

sites in Moscow, possibly

Pushkin Square or Novopushkinsky

Square. I suggest that for now

we not lock this down, that is,

regarding the venue of the event and

the time as well not

define them too precisely, because this is

a Saturday, most likely around midday. That

is, in the course of negotiations with the executive

authorities, we will resolve these issues in working order

as we go. The main thing is to enter into the calendar of

events this first action, which

will open

this protest period leading up to May 6,

dedicated to supporting political prisoners

on April 6.

Next,

from April 7 to 30, uh, we want to dedicate each

of those days to

supporting a particular person

being prosecuted in the Bolotnaya case. That is,

one day will be dedicated to Sergei Krivov,

another day to Ilya Glushchin,

Nikolai Kavkazsky, and so on—to all

the people being prosecuted in the Bolotnaya

case. It does not matter whether that person is

in pretrial detention, under house arrest, under

travel restrictions, or

forced into political emigration. We already have

one person convicted in this case. We

will dedicate each day

to one person.

On those days, we would like to make every

effort to

spread information

about the specifics of the case, about outrageous episodes

that remain unproven, about the

fabricated evidence in the case, about

false testimony by police officers,

that is, overall to draw attention to

the cases in which these guys are being convicted.

In addition,

of course, we will also cover

the situation the person is facing

in connection with being held in pretrial detention, that is,

the conditions of confinement.

Of course, we

the family situation

will also be able to show. That is, we will

speak each day about one

specific

person being persecuted by the authorities.

In addition, the working group on

organizing the protest action is appealing to

well-known politicians and public

figures, primarily those who are members of the

Opposition Coordination Council.

with a proposal to take part

in these days of support for the May 6

prisoners. It will be necessary to choose

a convenient day for you in April that

you can devote entirely

to supporting a particular person. You will need

to record a video in which

you talk about the situation with the investigation of the

case and perhaps read out an appeal.

And if we receive something from a person being held in

pretrial detention, that is, to devote one

of your days entirely to one

of the May 6 prisoners. I think this is

important. Uh, in many cases it would be

appropriate to meet with parents

and relatives. Also, Alexei has

Polikhovich has a wedding planned in the pre-trial detention center (SIZO).

I think people will, of course, want

to come and offer their congratulations, so this will be

a kind of street action as well.

It seems to me that we’ve found a good

balance between information campaigns

and street activity.

Campaign materials will be distributed,

leaflets with information, naturally, about

the upcoming main protest action on

the anniversary of the events on Bolotnaya Square

and information about the May 6 prisoners.

Of course, this will be distributed

um, near major metro stations, in

places with the heaviest

pedestrian traffic.

Uh, before practically every major

protest action, materials are handed out.

This time we want

to focus our efforts on this as well.

So over the course of the week we will

distribute

materials, and we’ll be able to reach a large

number of people. I think this will, on the whole,

well, um, have some effect.

So, in my view, it makes sense

to run this kind of campaign from April 29

through May 5.

And the next event

is planned—we have scheduled

a round-the-clock solo picket on

Manezhnaya Square from May 1 to May 5. There is

a group of activists who approached us

with this initiative,

and we supported it. I,

of course, understand that it will be quite difficult

to stay on

Manezhnaya Square for five days, but nevertheless such a

picket will also attract attention; it will be

useful. And May 1 through May 5 are holidays

and days off. There will be many

people out walking in central Moscow, in Alexander Garden,

and on Manezhnaya Square, so this picket

will be noticeable. Naturally, during the day

materials will be handed out.

So we supported

this initiative and included it in the schedule

of events.

Now about the main spring protest action.

protest.

Let’s start with the date.

During the discussion in our working group,

we considered various possible dates

for holding actions on the anniversary of the events

at Bolotnaya. We looked at the period from April 27

to May 12—practically every one of

those days. I’m not going to give

a characterization of each day right now. What is important

to understand is that May 5 is Easter, which

is preceded by Holy Week. In our view, it is not

particularly appropriate to hold events

on those days, and to hold

the main protest action even earlier, at the

end of April—for example, on April 27—

which is a Saturday, would be far too early.

That is, society still would not yet be talking

about these events. It would be somewhat

artificial.

Even if we make every possible effort,

it would still lead to the fact that

slightly fewer people would come to the action. That is,

in the information space we would not

be able, uh, to conduct such a broad

campaign. Of course, one could object that

those who want to come will, of course, come, but

it seems to me that we should still, uh,

choose an acceptable date, the most

suitable one, so that

people could

somehow combine attending our

event with their own

schedule. Therefore, in the end, after

lengthy discussion, we came to the

conclusion that the main spring protest action

should take place

on the exact day itself—that is, on May 6.

Uh, it seems to me that this is the right

decision.

Uh,

we will still have a discussion after

my report, but nevertheless this was

the unanimous decision of our working

group.

Now about the time.

Since May 6 is a working day,

if we want, uh,

people

to be able to get to the site of the action

after work, then it should probably

be held in the evening. That is reasonable. Holding it

during the daytime would be worse.

Therefore, we believe that on May 6

the action should, uh, take place in the evening

starting at 19:00, that is, with a 7:00 p.m. start.

About the format.

This will probably be the most debatable

question, but nevertheless we also arrived at

a unanimous opinion that

this time, this event, the main

event

of the spring, should be held in the format of

a rally without a march beforehand. I

will try to explain why.

First,

unlike previous actions, this

time we have a substantial substantive

agenda. There is a great deal we need

to tell people.

Two minutes remain.

Well, I won’t manage in two minutes—this is a report,

so please hear me out.

This is an important issue.

There is a lot we need to tell people. And

right now a public

investigation into the events on Bolotnaya

Square is underway. We need to tell people about its

findings. We need to give

the lawyers a chance to speak. We need to give

the opportunity to speak

to representatives, perhaps,

to the relatives of people being held in pretrial detention centers (SIZO, remand prisons).

This is an important issue. In other words, we effectively

must, um, this time hold

a full-fledged rally. It cannot be

short; it has to be a full-fledged

substantive, packed rally. In addition,

in my view, we need to move away from

certain standard formats. We have

already used the combination of a march plus a rally four

times last year, yes,

it is a successful model, but nevertheless

we need to introduce an element of novelty. For example,

on January 13 we held a successful

campaign, March Against Scoundrels. Uh, it

was organized together with colleagues. In

the course of preparing it, we received a great

many different opinions saying that we should not

hold marches. We needed

to hold a mandatory rally at its

conclusion. But nevertheless, we made

the right decision at that moment.

There was nothing to talk about. Everything that could be said

had already been said.

It was about children, about their fate. People

came out, came out for an energetic march.

And that was, by and large, the right

decision. A rally would have been, well, probably,

superfluous at that moment. Now the situation is

different. Right now we have a great deal

to tell people. That is why the rally format

is appropriate. We also have to take into account

another circumstance: after

a march, 15-20%

of people do not make it to the rally. They

took part in the march, they expressed their

civic position

and then leave. In this case, five minutes are addi-

in this case. Thank you. In this

case, it seems to me that this point also

needs to be taken into account. And finally, if we

plan to hold this event on May 6

and plan to hold it in the evening,

the reason for that, as I said earlier, then

we, um, have only

a limited amount of time for it. That

is, if we start it at seven, then we

in accordance with Article 9 of the

Federal Law on assemblies,

rallies, uh,

demonstrations, marches, and picketing

No. 54-FZ, by the way, must

end it by 10:00 p.m. So we have 3

hours. That is enough time for a substantive

rally, but it is not enough time

to additionally hold, so to

speak, actions in other formats. Now

about the location of the event.

We believe that the event marking the anniversary of the events

on Bolotnaya Square should be

held on Bolotnaya Square. It is

symbolic.

Other venues are less

suitable, so, overall, it is

obvious that we should try

to obtain approval to hold this

event on Bolotnaya Square.

And we have an idea to organize a series

of one-person pickets.

that would line the route

people take from the nearest metro station to the square.

I think this is an interesting addition. So

combined with the rally, I think

it will be a good solution. Now about

the name. This is also a very important point.

During the month before the main protest action

on May 6, we will be taking to the

streets of cities

in support of political prisoners. We will

demand their release,

so the slogan “Freedom for political prisoners”

will be the most relevant and central one.

For the May 6 action, we propose a name

that includes this slogan

perhaps as its main element, but nevertheless

also allows us to formulate other

most important

political demands. We propose

approving the name For

Freedom for the May 6 action.

I think that now all we have left is

the outline, and so that a complete

picture somehow, uh, emerges, I will briefly

list all these events that

I spoke about above.

And then, probably, we will move on to

the discussion. So: April 6, the International

Day of Coordinated Action for the Release of

Russian political prisoners. An event on

one of the city's central squares,

tentatively Pushkin Square. From

April 7 to 30, days of support for those charged

in the Bolotnaya case, with the participation of

opposition leaders and well-known public

figures.

On Saturdays, April 13, 20, and 27. Walks with

white symbols in the city center, including

on Red Square.

From April 29 to May 5, distribution of

leaflets and campaign materials

with information about the May 6 action

near metro stations and in places

with the heaviest pedestrian traffic. From May 1 to

5, a round-the-clock one-person picket on

Manezhnaya Square. On May 6, chains

of one-person pickets from the metro station to

Bolotnaya Square. And the main protest

action: a rally on Bolotnaya Square from

7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. The name is For Freedom.

Thank you for your attention.

Sergei Parkhomenko has now signed up to

speak. Anyone who has questions for

the speaker, please sign up accordingly.

Now Sergei, for now.

Thank you very much.

I support everything that Pyotr, uh,

Tsarkov said. I just want to clarify some

the ideas that emerged there,

and their meaning. It seems to me that we

must be fully aware that with

these, um, our events,

dedicated to the anniversary of May 6, we must

reverse a very important, very

unpleasant trend that, unfortunately,

is characteristic of many of our fellow citizens.

They have short

and shallow memories, many of them do.

They forget quickly and easily.

Right now, 24 people, so to speak,

are being subjected, in various forms, to

repression. Most of them are simply

sitting in prison for many months. And people do not

remember this. They have thrown it out of

their minds to a large extent. And yes,

indeed, this may sound

tragic, but it takes a tremendous effort

to make them remember that

something very important is happening to them, and

that it concerns all of them. And for them, for

everyone, it will have consequences, because

this is about a collective, show-trial-style

political trial, the first in many

decades in Russia. We remember what

that looked like from Russian history.

Now we are going to see it again. I do not yet know

the exact dates, to be honest, when they

or how much longer they will drag out this

investigation, but sooner or later it

will happen.

And uh—

why hide it? I had already somehow

moved the phone away, but somehow it still

came through.

And that is why, essentially, it seems to me

that the key thing will be this

preliminary action, a long one,

a kind of long-distance run, which was mentioned by

Tsarkom Pod Rozgom: one person, one

day. And I have started talking with

various fairly well-known people,

um, journalists, writers, actors.

And the response is very good. People say:

"Yes, I will do it, I will take it on."

Let us

sorry. May I add

something else?

People say: "Yes, I will do it, give me

a person. Assign me anyone at all,

it makes no difference to me—pick whoever you want at random."

And I will do everything possible—I have simply

already had these conversations several times—

so that throughout the day people will be talking about that person."

That is where it all begins, with this

morning video. And then the person,

each individual person,

uses every opportunity that

they have. If there is somewhere to speak, they

speak. If someone is conducting an interview,

they give an interview. If there is somewhere

to write, they write. They go and stand in

a one-person picket outside the Investigative

Committee. They come up with everything they possibly

can; if they have a large audience, I do not know, on

social media or somewhere else, they

write there. They come up with everything

possible so that during

that day there is a lot of talk about that person,

so that people remember right now

who this is, what happened to them,

where they are now, and what

they are facing. I am sure that if we want to,

we will be able to find not just one person for

each of these twenty-four. We

will be able to find two or three as well. These are exactly the

people who should form the

core of our speakers on May 6. And that is precisely

why I believe it is absolutely right

that this should be a rally with a microphone

and with speeches. This is one of those cases when

there is a great deal to say and,

without a doubt, there are people to say it.

Thank you.

That is all. Yes,

well, perhaps there will be another opportunity.

For now.

Nikolai Bondarinno.

I pressed the button.

from below, the light.

It was on here. Maybe now

it will work.

Friends, naturally, everything that our colleague

Parkhomenko said is, of course, very

interesting, and naturally, we support all of it.

But it seems to me that we should not

forget the main

task altogether. This is a mass protest

event. Surely everyone has, probably,

read Sergei's appeal, yes, from Udaltsov.

So. And in fact, I already

believe—this is my principled position—that

reducing everything to just one rally

without a march, well, that is simply wrong,

yes. That is, as protest practice has shown,

people come out much more actively

and much more intensely specifically for

an action, for a march, that is, for

some kind of public action, right? A bare

rally will, by definition, draw

one and a half to two times fewer people than

a march would. Therefore, of course,

we have no right to give up the march,

I believe, right? So if we

do not settle this question now, then let us

at least adopt some kind of compromise

option, the one Sergei is proposing,

namely, at the very least, not to decide yet,

what exactly it will be, although I personally will

vote for a march, of course. That is my view.

And this is a very important question,

which simply cannot be ignored. I

believe that we need to hold a march.

A march, and a rally as well, of course.

Daniil Konstantinov,

representative of Daniil Konstantinov.

Dear colleagues,

I really like a number of the proposals, in

particular, the idea of dedicating a day to political prisoners

for them. It is a strong,

fresh, very good idea.

The only thing I would suggest we think about

a little is, uh, whether we really need

to limit ourselves only to the May 6 prisoners (those prosecuted over the Bolotnaya Square protest),

because what about our Leonid Razvozzhayev,

and what about our Daniil Konstantinov,

who are members, members

of the Coordination Council and of the group for

preparing protest actions? I really do not

understand.

The thing is that each and, probably,

probably, every person present here

has organized dozens, perhaps even hundreds

of protest actions in their life. Yes, and we

all know several things perfectly well.

First, on a Monday,

in the evening,

after work, that already sharply limits

the circle of participants in the action; no more than

half of our, so to speak,

maximum activist base will come. That is the first point. And

second,

a rally.

Fine, a rally, wonderful. Words are needed,

talk is needed. But please, believe me,

as someone who

has taken part since 1988

in all kinds of rallies. People come to

rallies today, and even yesterday, not in order

to listen to speakers. What is new there?

Speaker, add a minute.

Add what

a minute, add it. The speakers tell people nothing new.

Everyone knows; there is a list

of political prisoners, there will be placards with

them displayed. What we need, need is a march,

dynamic and energetic.

What is needed is not only a defensive but also

an offensive thrust. And I would also suggest

thinking about the march against the executioners, which

we somehow successfully, so to speak,

let drag on over the past month.

Why not combine these actions into

one? On the sixth, there absolutely must be a march

for sure. Thank you.

Alexei Sokhnen.

Actually, my colleagues have already taken part of

my thunder. I, of course, also wanted

to speak in support of the Sixth.

So I will be very brief. First,

dear friends, participants in protest

actions relate very differently to our

faces and to the arguments that

we repeat to them time after time. Therefore,

staging, so to speak, yet another

benefit performance for various political factions

is pointless. I would suggest, for

development,

that the protest actions group consider the following

idea: the rally should specifically not be

endlessly long. At it, there could be

very brief remarks by

representatives of the different groups of prisoners.

There are our prisoners there, there is

Daniil Konstantinov there, there are

they can probably be grouped somehow; 24

speakers would be far too many, but

perhaps 12 speakers. Very briefly.

Lawyers, relatives, close

comrades.

Ah, and of course, without a doubt, experience

shows that any march draws

more people than any rally. And not at all

because the people taking part in

a march can, so to speak,

only spare an hour and a half

for participation and then have to rush off somewhere.

Not at all. It is because a march as a format

offers far more opportunity for

participation than a rally as a format. All the more so

when it is a rally organized by such a broad

and multicolored, diverse coalition, in

which, as it were, not all participants

are equally appealing to everyone. Therefore, from

our side, we strongly insist

on a march after all, or at least

on not making a final decision for

now.

Thank you.

Gennady Konov

speaking. Hello. Hello.

Please give him the microphone. I ask that I be

given more time, because I

am involved in the work of this group. I,

in fact, came here specifically,

although I will soon be leaving, uh, Russia

for a short time. We came specifically

in order to discuss this issue. And

what is the problem here? Right now we are

repeating the working group's meeting.

Everyone starts putting forward some

normal, reasonable, at first glance,

ideas, but believe me, we have already

worked through, reworked, and talked through all of this.

And

a march is impossible on a Monday, because

it will be rush hour.

That means either holding it in the evening, and then

there will be the corresponding traffic,

well, maybe not quite as

heavy as on a normal working day.

It will still be between holidays, but

even so, a march is impossible; we will be

refused permission, and all of this will end in an

unauthorized action. That is the first point. I

would still like us, perhaps,

to discuss this once more in working order.

By the way, at the time we agreed

that a month was entirely

enough to prepare

a proper concert program, specifically

a politicized one, devoted, as it were,

so to speak, to the theme of a day for freedom.

Freedom is a broad concept. Therefore,

it seems to me that right now we are

we are needlessly doing what we have already done

in the working group. We are discussing new dates.

The twenty-seventh was discussed as well, correctly

as Pyotr said, the twelfth was discussed,

working days were discussed, and

the fifth, a day off, was discussed too, since it is Easter. And everything

was discussed, everything was worked through. We were unable

to propose a combination of a march and a rally, and

no one will dare accuse us of the fact that

the protest movement is fading away, that

the protest mood has burned out, and that

if we marginalize ourselves,

it will be unclear whom we represent. Therefore I

still propose that the proposal of our

working group, although I am not a member of it,

though I did take part,

be supported and refined, this scenario, so that

we can truly

hold a powerful mass event

showing that the protest mood

has not gone anywhere, that the protest has spread

deeper and wider, that it will undoubtedly

continue, as I can see now

from the prepared documents in the regions, and we

will support this.

As for the remaining details, I would suggest that our

working group refine them, and that those who would like

to join this group, those who wish

to take an active part in preparing

this extremely important

public and political event.

That is roughly it.

Colleagues, please keep your remarks shorter.

Pedrkov is next.

As for what was said about the idea that

a march in itself attracts more

people than a rally. That is, of course,

not true. We all know perfectly well that

the first rallies drew 100,000

people. They were not preceded by marches.

Let us simply, well, speak

the truth, yes. Right now, a march as a format

would rather be harmful on May 6, because

some people will not make it to the rally,

they will leave after the march. This is an objective

reality. We have encountered this before, and

it is very hard to dispute. And the energy

of the people who actually

take part in a march really

how to put it, well, creates a kind of drive

that appears. That is true. So this time let us

hold not an energetic march, but

an energetic rally. That, uh, can also

be done. We have a substantial

agenda. It seems to me that all the conditions,

given that it is May 6, in the evening, and

a working day, only allow us

to hold a rally. Let us simply, well,

not

fixate on a march. Next time

we will hold a march, but this time

let us hold a large, serious rally.

Thank you. Yevgeny Cherekova.

Colleagues, perhaps some kind of public

letter from cultural figures in support of

political prisoners? It seems to me that this

worked quite well at the time, with

the girls and Pussy Riot. And it seems to me

that this would be very

appropriate now as well. And I would discuss precisely

this kind of systematic work. Rally, march.

In general, I have always supported the idea of

marches, and I have even always supported

marches rather than rallies. But now

I urge everyone simply to act within

the framework of our own logic in the Coordination Council. We created

this group to organize the action. As I understand it,

it met five times. They discussed all

these issues thoroughly and in

full detail. Therefore I propose

that for now we take their

proposal as the basis.

And what we really need is simply

an energetic rally. It, well, should not

be a bit dull, the way ours

always end up being for objective

reasons. It is not that it is dull because

there is some villain making

rallies dull, but nevertheless ours

do turn out that way a little. So

therefore what we need rather is

to focus on having

the right, successful format, where people

who came to this rally do not

just fulfill their civic duty,

but also get enjoyment from

that shared energy. That is what we need

to focus on. And lastly, I

support our colleague Pivovarov's proposal.

I believe that, well, at a minimum, Moscow,

St. Petersburg, Yekaterinburg, and Novosibirsk are definitely cities where we

can hold an event on the same day.

Thank you, Ilya Yashin.

Colleagues, it seems to me there are two not-so

key turning points that emerged in the

course of the discussion. The first turning point is

the theme. The second is, in fact, the format

or Dmitry Krishfelya.

And indeed, in early May, of course,

it is impossible to move away from the topic of political

prisoners. Uh, and this should be one

of the main things to which

the main slogans are devoted, obviously. But,

perhaps, after all, it is probably not worth

narrowing things down and holding a rally devoted

exclusively to the topic of political

prisoners. Perhaps,

we should try to find a way

to broaden the theme and raise those

issues that concern people beyond

the topic of people persecuted for political

reasons. How to do that? That is a

technical question, probably, but it seems to me

that it would be the right thing to do.

As for the format, it seems to me

the question here is very simple. We either

hold the action on the sixth, in which case

we limit ourselves to a rally, or we change

the date, and then expand the format to

a march and a rally, because, well,

it is perfectly obvious that on a weekday,

on the sixth, we, uh, will not be able

to coordinate a march with the mayor's office

with the roadway closed off, and then,

most likely, we will have to go out for

an unsanctioned protest. Well, in that,

there is really nothing terrible, except

that it sharply reduces the number of

potential participants in the protest.

Therefore, we need to hold either on the fifth or

on the fourth a sanctioned

march, or on the fifth

limit ourselves to a rally. Thank you.

For example, we could simply prepare

for each of the imprisoned individuals

specific materials,

and post them simply in the blogosphere. This

would simply remind people and generally indicate

what this event is about, who

these people are, why they are considered

political prisoners, and why such a large number of people

are speaking out in their support,

because, after all, Russia is

not just Moscow; there are the regions as well. And

believe me, there are places where people have

barely heard anything about this, and even that only in the best

case from one of their neighbors, because

for the most part they watch television, where

on this subject, as you yourselves know,

they usually tell us nothing. Therefore, I

think it makes sense to use

such a mechanism for informing people

in general what this is, what it is about, and why it

is happening. Ah, Maxim Katz.

Dear colleagues, Mr.

Chairman, I would like to draw your

attention to Article 39 of our rules of procedure,

which sets out the procedure

for considering issues at meetings of the

Coordinating Council. We have gotten a little

stuck on item five, and it

has already lasted longer than the 30 minutes provided for by the rules.

And the next stage

of considering issues in accordance with

this article is adopting the decision in

principle, and then introducing amendments, uh, to

the decision adopted in principle, and then

voting on the entire decision as a whole. And

it seems to me that the fairly

large working group that

worked on this issue has very

carefully examined every aspect. And I

think that we need to adopt as a basis

precisely their proposal, because

well, otherwise, if such extensive

work is carried out, and then we

do not even adopt it in principle,

well, then certainly nothing here will work

at all. Therefore, I propose

that we move to item six of the procedure

for considering the issue and put to a vote

the adoption in principle

of the draft proposed by the working group. And

then move to item seven and

consider the proposed amendments, namely

replacing the rally with a march, and

also the other amendments that were raised here,

and then vote on the decision

as a whole.

Everyone has already spoken, so let us

move on. Our time is up. And

we are putting to a vote the adoption in

principle of the plan proposed by the working

group, and then we will consider the details.

Who is in favor of adopting as a basis the plan

proposed by the working group?

What are we voting on?

We are voting on whether to adopt in

principle the proposed plan itself.

23 votes. The decision is adopted. Now

let us vote separately on the procedure

for introducing it. Wait. But where is the draft

resolution? Is there a written draft

resolution on this issue?

There is no written draft resolution, but

everything has been outlined.

Wait a moment. How and where are we

going to introduce amendments, dear

colleagues? Where exactly are we going to put the amendments?

Do you know which ones?

Well, the key alternatives have just been outlined

just now. Let us vote on them

or put them to the assembly. That also

works.

By the way, I really do think,

please,

how can we vote while shouting from your seat

please ask for the floor.

Raise your hand,

colleagues, apparently you are right after all. So,

perhaps at this stage we should do

the following: have a group, including

representatives of those who prepared

the report and possibly some of those who

spoke just now, step aside and prepare

a draft resolution, uh, which could then

be posted for discussion by the

Coordinating Council. And we ourselves will move on to

the next issue, and then return to

this one. Without a draft resolution that

we could vote on, and into which

various proposals and

provisions could be incorporated, it really would be

difficult for us to formulate

a proposal that could then

be adopted as a decision

for inclusion in the minutes.

Dear colleagues, I do not quite

understand what resolution we are waiting for. Just now

there was a report by the working group, which

proposed a plan of specific actions.

That plan can be printed out.

So it is precisely this plan, this very thing

that Petrkov spoke about,

that should be submitted, that is what we should have.

Yes, if I may, I will finish. So, we

we should

prepare, preferably in written form,

a plan,

which we have just voted to adopt

as a basis. If there are any proposals, we can

discuss them. Something along those lines.

Thank you. On procedure, then, Mr.

Chairman, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that

our rules of procedure do not in any way regulate

the existence of a written draft resolution.

Of course, this seems logical, and

it really is strange to vote for

some decision without a written

draft. However, you may still

put it to a vote, since the

rules contain nothing about the mandatory nature

of a written draft.

We have staff.

At the moment, we do have the practical ability, in

principle, to review this plan. We can

provide it later. I am simply

suggesting that perhaps the key branching points

could be put to a vote, for example,

regarding the date of the rally. There were two,

respectively, proposals: May 5 and May 6,

as I understand it.

Let us at least approve that the main

rally is planned for May 6. Who is in favor of

approving this date?

What? What?

May 6.

20% plus, separately, a proposal was made

to hold preliminary

actions in the regions on the fourth; the decision

has been adopted

the decision has been adopted, yes, and separately there was

a proposal to register actions in the regions on May 4–5

and accordingly this also becomes

a proposal

a proposal; it is simply in the same

conclusion

let's

Yes, I simply have a proposal, dear

colleagues. We are the Coordinating Council, and

since people are expecting some kind of decisions and

proposals from us, let us declare these

days, May 5–6, days of nationwide

rallies and marches under the slogan "For Freedom"

I think that this would be very

appropriate; whichever regions are able to

organize themselves will do so, and whatever issues

require our assistance, we will show how to make

such an action, which should take place, perhaps

or rather be held, in other populated

areas as well

in general, I am putting to a vote May 5 for holding

the event

[music]

Colleagues, despite the fact that our colleague Kas

says that a written version of the decision

is not necessary, that is not entirely

accurate. Article

316 of the rules of procedure states: "The adoption of a draft

resolution as a basis means," and so

on. That is, a draft

resolution is required. The words 'draft resolution,' in my

view, imply the existence specifically

of a draft resolution in written form.

Therefore, I would consider it advisable

to print out this draft and then

vote on it.

On procedure, no more. And there was also,

you wanted to put to a vote,

yes, there was a proposal to put to a vote the holding of

actions in the regions.

Once again, we will... Let us vote.

Let's do that. In fact, I now urge everyone

not to waste time on this discussion,

because the questions that are now

going to be put to a vote

are being torn out of context, and this does not

create a complete picture of the final

action. Therefore, I propose that we proceed

as follows. Without wasting time on

printing this document and on

drafting it, adopt it as a basis and

then put the key branching questions to

a democratic vote.

How is that possible? How can this question be

put to a vote? We have not discussed it. We

have the right to discuss it. And

for example, I also believe that we generally

need to understand what it is we are actually deciding.

Simply on paper, because in my view

it is so simple and clear that otherwise

speculation will begin later. We have already voted

for this. No, no, this

question there was only adopted as a basis. And

that adoption as a basis

implied that you were speaking only about the rally

without raising the rest.

They are already printing it. Well, wait a few

minutes, they will bring it now. Well, let us

proceed as follows. The proposals

that were formulated by Pyotr

Tsarkov, we will print out, distribute, and

return to this issue later.

For now, I propose removing it from

consideration

or declaring a recess,

or removing it,

colleague, why are you shouting?

On procedure, accordingly,

yes, on procedure I wanted to say that

we are voting on a draft resolution. What is the

draft resolution? To approve everything at once?

A working group, a working group.

And we also have procedural experience.

So, excuse me, I

propose either declaring a recess and

waiting until we are given the written

version, or postponing this issue until

later today and now moving on to

consideration of the next item, and then

returning to this one when we have

a written resolution. One of these two

options needs to be chosen. Let us

vote. It will not take much time,

so everything can be printed out?

The process is already underway.

They’re already handing them out. They’re already handing them out.

Then let’s move on to the next

item. After that, we’ll return to

our plans.

And the next item is

the resolution on creating a regional

representative council

of the Russian opposition. Accordingly,

you have it as item number three.

Who from the regional development group

is presenting? We have a procedural question. Have we

voted?

considers the actions of the Moscow city authorities

in preparing and carrying out the mass

opposition rally on May 6, 2013, at

Bolotnaya Square (a square in Moscow) to have been a deliberate provocation

by officials of the Moscow city government and

the Main Directorate of the Russian Interior Ministry for the city of

Moscow against the participants in the peaceful

lawful rally, with a request

to conduct an inquiry into whether there are grounds to find

elements of a crime. If, if that is

the short version, the materials have been distributed to all members

of the Coordinating Council; I ask you to vote

for the adoption of this resolution

to personally sign the said statement, and

also to call through your social

networks

on a wide range of citizens to sign

the said statement and send it to

the investigative authorities. Thank you.

Support.

Alexei Navalny.

Yes, colleagues, in fact this

issue is essentially a continuation of our

discussion at the previous CC meeting, where we

said that on the Bolotnaya case

we need to take an offensive stance.

Now that we have the opportunity

to review the case materials, we have

all the evidence showing that what

happened at Bolotnaya Square on May 6

was a pre-planned

provocation. Here you can see the crime report

that has been prepared,

a legal document of that kind. Here

you can simply see that there are

official letters from the Moscow police, where it is directly

stated that with the organizers of the public

event, the layout plan

and deployment of forces were not coordinated,

because they were considered internal service matters.

That is, Moscow itself admits that

it first agreed on one

plan, then changed everything, and

did not warn the organizers. From our

point of view, this clearly constitutes

a crime. And once again, here we must

take an offensive stance. I

propose that today everyone sign this

crime report

and thereby formalize our

claims, and then use our legal

options in order

to demand a truly

objective investigation now or

later. But these people must be

held accountable. This is the first

step in that direction.

Thank you.

Nikolai.

I’ll say right away: of course I will sign it.

I fully support it. And,

Mikhail Shats.

I would like to add the following. A resolution

is all very well, of course, and I

fully agree with its content. But

we need to understand that if we—Alexei, you

are saying that we should choose

an offensive tactic—then it should

be a tactic not merely of adopting

a resolution, but a tactic of counter-propaganda. That

is, I mean, for example, many times

we have talked about conducting

an alternative investigation into the events of May 6.

Many times we have talked about

making documentary films, and

about the participants in those events, the injured party

and so on. In this sense,

it seems to me very important, uh,

to prepare for the upcoming trial

in the Bolotnaya case precisely from this

point of view: to bring in journalists, to bring in

documentary filmmakers, and to create some

counterarguments that will be more

audible than yet another resolution.

Sergei Parkhomenko.

It is very unfortunate that it was Mikhail who said these

words. In his case, somehow, I feel

especially upset that he does not know that

a parallel investigation, a public

investigation into May 6, is underway; a

large commission has been created.

There is a separate group that

is collecting witness statements, video,

photos, and so on. More than 500 people have already

come forward with their testimony.

There is also a group that will receive a report on

all this collected evidence in order

to analyze it and

produce a final report with

conclusions. At the last meeting, I

urged colleagues to pay some attention

to this investigation, to read about it,

if it’s not too much trouble, to find material about it on

the internet, and somehow help

spread the word that this

process is taking place. Unfortunately, that

did not happen. Once again, I urge you

just to google it—none of us is

exempt—find the public

investigation into May 6 and talk about it,

use the opportunities that

you have. Separately, I would like to say that

19

March

Uh, at 6:00 p.m. an exhibition will open,

which is not just

an art photography exhibition dedicated to May 6,

It is the first attempt

to present to the public some of the

materials that were collected during this

investigation. I strongly recommend

and ask those who were in Moscow on the nineteenth

to come to this exhibition and

tell those who listen to you about it.

This is an extremely important thing. It is a practical

matter. It is not at all just, so to speak,

some kind of artistic impression

that one can take away from all this.

And Mikhail Artegin, please, go ahead.

Indeed, as they say, without you

we will not manage. And the buildings and so on. And

I have a question about this. Uh,

as for signing this

crime report, is this to be done as

a collective matter? Should we all

sign one sheet, or does each of

us submit it in our own name?

The idea is that we are now

signing this statement collectively

as members of the Coordinating Council, and then we appeal to

everyone. Just technically, how should this be done?

After all, the full names of the applicants would require

five pages of applicants' names. We have here

Let us print out during the break

the last page. And if the statement

is now adopted by the Coordinating

Council, then each member of the Coordinating

Council will personally sign the last page

of the statement, with signature and printed name there. And

the first page can then be prepared in

typed form later.

Aha, understood.

All right.

And Serdyukov. Well, actually,

I would like to thank the authors for the

work they have done and say that statements

in isolated individual cases about

crimes committed by the authorities and

the police have been written before, but when there were few of them,

the authorities had the ability simply to

ignore them. My two, for now, have

been ignored.

But if there are many of them, a flood of them, if people

send them in large numbers on their own behalf,

then it will be much harder for them

to ignore them. And our view

will become, well, a kind of public fact. In

this connection, I urge that if we

adopt this statement—as I hope we will—

everyone should post it on their social

media, promote this idea, so that

its implementation takes on a mass

character.

Maxim

I will not speak, Gennady Gudkov has already

said what I wanted to say.

Anton Dolgikh.

Lyubov, please remove from the

title the words "committed," because

the Code of Criminal Procedure provides for a report of

a crime. Even if it is called

a statement about a crime. And I propose

doing it this way: write to all members of the Coordinating Council that

there will be a collective appeal, and whoever

wishes may also do so individually,

because each person will need to

receive a response. That would be better—that is,

both collective and individual, and

we should call on citizens to do the same.

Ah, all right. Put to a vote is

me

Andrei.

[music]

Still, so, here we have

a resolution and a statement on

three pages. But the three documents

that are in the attached supporting

pages have not, at least in

our section, been distributed. Uh,

since we are voting for the resolution and for

the statement with the corresponding references, then

of course, we would like to have these

documents. Especially if we

support the procedure that was just

discussed, with signatures both

collective and individual, then all

members—or at least those who sign

this document—must have a full

understanding of the entire package of documents

that we are now supporting, both

collectively and individually.

We,

unfortunately, have only one

copy, but all members of the Coordinating Council can

review all these documents. Well,

during the break we can distribute

them; all the papers are available, so that can be arranged.

I would like to note that on this issue the presenter is Lyubov Sobol, but for some reason

the one answering all our questions is

Alexei Navalny.

I asked that the rules of procedure

be observed. And as for procedure,

briefly: this is already the second time

and with all due respect to Sobol, yes,

that, in my view, at the very last moment

some resolutions are being introduced which

we of course unquestionably

support, but surely you must agree

that this resolution, these documents,

could have been prepared and sent out 2–3 days ago

so that we could at least print them out for the

meeting. No offense intended, of course,

I apologize. Mm-hmm.

And,

colleague Vandarev, thank you for the comment.

That is something for the future. And to colleague Larionov

I would like to say that, first of all, all

these materials I sent out as best I could

myself to the personal email addresses that I

know for all members of the council yesterday, together

with the attached documents. That is, there

in the PDF file were all the documents that

have just been handed to you. You could have

reviewed them, or done so a little

later. Second, I would like to note

that these documents, which we are

attaching, are not secret, and

information about them has circulated, including

in the media. And Svetlana Reiter

published part of the document that

is attached to the application in SQUR magazine. This

was all widely discussed, and so on. In other words,

the documents are not some kind of

novelty or something unique.

You misunderstood. The point is that many

documents are, of course, known and familiar,

and many of the people who are here

not only knew and read these documents,

but studied them. The consideration and adoption

of documents presupposes that these

documents are right in front of us,

distributed. Especially since there are

relevant references here, indications of these

documents in the appropriate volume. This is

simply standard procedure for such a

respected body as

Sergei, please.

I think there is one thing that

needs to be decided today. Yes,

of course.

Uh, we had already sort of raised our hands

to vote for this, the vote was then

carried out. Approval has been granted.

Yes, because it seems to me

it has been adopted. I'm telling you. Thank you. Excellent.

Is there anyone opposed?

Thus, this plan has been adopted as the

basis. All amendments and disagreements

will be finalized in the group and submitted to

Democracy 2.

I want to congratulate the coordinating council

of the Russian opposition on the already existing

successful experience of influencing civic and

political protests in the regions. We

adopted a resolution on January 20 regarding the city of

Bezhinsk in Nizhny Novgorod Region. And this

resolution, together, of course, with other

systematic protest actions,

led to the fact that on March 13 the Supreme

Court was forced to make a decision

that, well, automatically triggers the

procedure for reinstating in office

the removed Bezhinsk mayor Sopin,

a protest mayor, a mayor who

demonstratively left United Russia,

a mayor who set himself against

the current political system in

Russia. That system is now being forced

to reinstate him. In this, no small

role—far from a minor one—was played by

our January resolution. Now we are

preparing to hold protest

events in April and May. Yes. Who will

organize these very protest

events, invite a representative of the CC

to the region?

Who will collect signatures for

the appeal

that we have just voted on, yes,

thanks to our colleague Soba. I assure you that

these tasks cannot be solved through Facebook, through

the internet—we will not solve them

we will not. In the regions, at pickets, statements like these

statements

we will collect, well, at least as many,

and in some regions even more than

through internet resources.

And for all this, to organize this kind of

work, we now need, as badly as air,

regional CC offices.

And the last thing I still wanted

to emphasize, yes, is that in essence the

proposed resolution is simply

a mechanism for forming these regional

branches. Right now there is neither time nor

opportunity; I assure you that in the regions

there is no need to hold elections to these

regional committees. They need to be

formed by delegation,

by granting authority from those

organizations that are represented in the CC,

to their people who are in the regions.

That's all. Thank you for your attention.

Alexei.

Yes, colleagues, I took part in the working

group in which this

document was discussed, and I think that overall it can be

supported. I would draw your attention

to

the point that says the CC

rejects the artificial

formation of regional representative offices,

because while the need

to form such coordinating

bodies is understandable, on the other hand

there is a very important danger that in many

regions there are in reality

already established coalitions—political,

social, protest coalitions—for

which often

a representative of this region in the CC or

some part of the CC is, so to speak, more

of an evil than a good or an ally. And so

to create structures that will

actually oppose the existing

activists or split this activist base

in half is extremely dangerous. Gennady Kov.

Dear colleagues, I would simply like

to draw your attention to the fact that we are making

a decision somewhat

without looking at our political

statement. In the political statement, I

simply took part in its preparation and

editing, it is stated that we do not

centralize

protest activity, and that the issue

of forming similar structures is,

by and large, an initiative for the regions themselves.

In order not to introduce this

resolution into the ruling right now, I

I suggest adopting it, perhaps as the

basis, but making sure to specify that

the representative office of the Coordination

Council is specifically a representative office

of that Moscow Coordination Council

for interaction with regional

associations, if and when they emerge.

Why Moscow? Because, because in

our political declaration, which

we, well, which we

adopted, it clearly states that

the Coordination Council renounces

any kind of—I don’t remember the exact wording

offhand, I don’t have it in front of me—monopolization and centralization

of the protest movement. Therefore, we need

to distinguish between these two concepts. I believe

that, in general, a representative office

of the CC is a positive thing. Through these

representative offices, we can share experience,

exchange opinions,

information, and so on and so forth.

But this cannot replace, and must not

replace, in accordance with our

political declaration, the possibility

of creating similar coordination

councils at the initiative of the regions. These

two concepts simply need to be separated,

and this must be added to the resolution

that we are now about to

vote on. Thank you. Andrei Pivovarov.

I actually voted against this

resolution in the group. It seems to me

that delegating authority outside the framework

of elections will create exactly the problems

that our colleague Akhnin was talking about. That is, in

St. Petersburg, if we delegate authority to anyone,

we will simply end up with

another two or three groups. It seems to

me that we can work perfectly well within

the regional group, within

the framework of the entire CC’s work with the regions. And for that

there is no need to delegate or single out any

representatives, in my view.

A colleague was talking about collecting

signatures—I may be mistaken, but it seems to me

we can work directly with the people

who are doing this and organize

the work that way as well. But by singling someone out, by appointing

someone as a representative, we are going against

ourselves, because we were not, so to speak, elected

to appoint anyone, and we do not need the authority

to appoint someone in a region. Therefore,

I voted against it.

Alexei Navalnych,

thank you. Colleagues, I would support

our colleague Pivovarov. It seems to me this is

the wrong system, one in which the CC

would now begin issuing licenses for

being the opposition in a given region to one

person or another. It is clear that here,

no matter how hard we try to be

objective, there are still personal

relationships between CC members and certain people in

the regions, who are either good or

bad. There is a long history of bad

and good relations. What is most

remarkable about our CC? People may

criticize what they like and do not like about it,

but it was definitely elected. And here

everyone is here by virtue of the fact that they were

elected by others. And it seems to me that this is

the only possible principle

for forming CCs in the regions. For example,

right now in Zhukovsky

the process is underway. Without any guidance

from us, they simply went ahead and will elect their own CC,

and it will be legitimate; it does not need anything from us. And

most importantly, it will be recognized by the residents

of Zhukovsky—not by some opposition,

not by any organizations, but by the residents

of Zhukovsky. That is the most important thing. We

recently had a meeting of our group on

electronic democracy. Alexei was there too.

And right now elections are already underway

in Zhukovsky. And preparations are underway

for the possibility that elections may be

held in Yekaterinburg. And everyone,

of course, would very much like elections

to take place in St. Petersburg, but the situation there is, of course, very

complicated, and these elections

cannot be imposed from Moscow, because

in St. Petersburg the opposition figures hate each other so much

that, well—but still,

this is something we should strive for.

It seems to me that the task of the regional group

is rather to resolve this issue somehow,

to come up with such proposals

under which, for example, in

St. Petersburg such elections could take place. But

I repeat: this issue should be resolved only through elections.

Thank you.

Ilya Konstantinov.

Dear colleagues, I think that between

the different points of view expressed

here, there is actually no contradiction.

The point is that our Coordination

Council is not, first of all, a Moscow one.

because it was elected not only in

Moscow, and it includes representatives not only from

Moscow. That is the first thing I wanted

to note. And the second, and most important, point is that

we should not exaggerate our own

importance and think that if here in the

Coordination Council we assign some Ivan Doe

to organize protest activity in

some backwater town,

then Ivan Ivanovich Ivanov, who lives on

the next street over in that same town, will

hang himself over it. He will not hang himself over

that. If somewhere elections to a Coordination Council

are held without regard to the recommendations

of the

Central Coordination Council,

more power to them. But if someone locally,

in some town or village, says:

"Guys, I want to take part in the work.

There are only one, two, three of us here,

and we’re all bruised and battered—why shouldn’t he...

help? Why not support it with our

authority? I think these two

positions—grassroots self-organization and assistance

from the Central Coordinating Council

do not exclude one another at all.

Thank you.

Sergei Davidovich.

Dear colleagues,

dear colleagues, I generally agree

with the doubts that have been expressed

about this kind of interventionist format

of the proposed statement, this imposition of

opposition organizational structures from

Moscow, which is, generally speaking, both unrealistic and

replaces the institution already proposed, but

on the other hand, it is obvious that ties with

the regions

are, well, not good enough, the issues facing

the regions are not fully understood, and by the efforts

of the regional group alone,

which in any case is, well, located there in

a specific place in Moscow or St. Petersburg, that is,

its members cannot cover with their

view everything. Uh, that is impossible

to do. Therefore, there is a sensible element

connected with formalizing communication with

each of the regions, it seems to me, in this

draft. I would suggest to the authors

perhaps reworking it so that

uh, well, such missions, such links,

so to speak, yes, also a direct and clear channel

of communication, an eye, so to speak, of the Coordinating Council, uh, from among

those who wish to create one locally—then

that would serve the goals of further

development. Ilya Yashin,

colleagues, I propose voting against

this resolution. It seems to me that, uh, we

should encourage, if these are elections in

the regions. And if so far not a single

coordinating council has appeared in the regions,

then, uh, people are not yet ready. We must

avoid, uh, attempts to impose, through a

top-down vertical scheme, any kind of

formats, because we will only sow

conflicts. We will not solve the

tasks we declare; instead, we will

generate multiple conflicts, we will

draw reproaches against ourselves and pit

representatives of different opposition

groups in the regions against one another. We need to help people

organize elections, we need to help

people organize some kind of, I don't

know, forums, but we cannot propose

a format, uh, devised in Moscow.

Therefore, it seems to me that the resolution is rather

counterproductive.

Andrei Valery.

Dear colleagues, quite a number of

colleagues have already expressed, generally speaking, the idea

that I also wanted to mention.

In our unfortunate country, there are very many

different vertical power structures—security,

legislative, presidential, and so on. Now we

currently run the risk of creating a vertical chain

of coordinating councils, which, in my

view, is definitely something we should not do. And

here, in this draft resolution,

unless I am mistaken, I believe the word

"elections" does not appear even once, unless I am

mistaken. All of us here

on the Coordinating Council found ourselves here

because we were elected, elected by our

voters. And in general, the Coordinating Council itself

has its own kind of

well,

forerunner, namely

the rallies and mass demonstrations of December

2011 and then the beginning of

2012, which demanded

elections—and not just elections, but

fair elections. Uh, therefore,

well, we should continue to develop

uh, our own electoral procedures,

so that there can be no complaints against us

regarding how we ourselves

were elected. And we certainly must not

impose on anyone

procedures that exclude elections, let alone

fair elections. Therefore, from the point

of view of the actions of the Coordinating

Council, we could, with the help of our

regional group, provide assistance in

organizing the relevant elections in

the regions. Therefore, I would suggest that

those who proposed this resolution should not

put it to a vote now, because

it will not pass, but instead rework it

accordingly so that

there is, uh, proper room here for

electoral procedures and assistance from

our Coordinating Council in

organizing them.

And I wanted to take the floor briefly.

It is just that we really are holding

elections to the People's Council. And I would like

to note two things. First, holding

elections is a very important test.

It shows whether a regional branch is at all

viable. And second, it

solves our important strategic task

of building up a base of supporters of the

Coordinating Council, which increases the legitimacy

of our system of electronic democracy. And

now I simply propose that the representative,

Artyom, take the floor for a final word, yes, and decide

whether to put the resolution forward or not, and then

vote, if necessary.

I also have something to say.

Well, time is already limited.

Under our rules, for the debate

10 minutes are allotted, and that time has already expired.

Russky.

Dear colleagues, thank you to everyone who

has expressed an opinion. The opinions are clear,

the opinions are well grounded, yes, but I would simply very much

ask all of you, colleagues, to read carefully

the documents that

are submitted for the CCO meeting, because

that this resolution’s content, precisely,

actually reconciles these outwardly

opposing points of view. Please note

what it begins with: to begin

forming a representative body in

regions where there has been positive experience

of jointly holding public

events.

Where such experience exists—and we have it in

the Nizhny Novgorod Region—there we

can now form a regional

branch of the Coordination Council according to the model

proposed in this resolution, that is,

through delegation. Elections there right now

would only complicate things; there is no need. It would waste time. It would

only inflame protests, contradictions,

and squabbles.

I do not need that in Nizhny Novgorod.

And where there is no such

cooperation, as was rightly said,

we should refrain from artificially

forming regional committees and

consider and think through what should be done there and how.

Finally,

elections are by no means

excluded from this resolution. It proposes resolving the issue of

involving in the work of forming

regional representative bodies

members of regional electoral

commissions and, where necessary, jointly with

the Central Election Commission. There is

an opportunity in some places to hold elections, in Belgorod for example.

Let’s hold elections in Zhukovsky, in

Yekaterinburg, in St. Petersburg.

This resolution specifically provides for

different options, but we are simply asking that you not

close off the possibility of quickly and

effectively forming representation

of the forces in the regions, where a lengthy,

difficult, drawn-out election procedure

is simply unnecessary. Therefore, dear

colleagues, I insist that this

resolution be put to a vote now.

Accordingly, the resolution is put to

a vote.

Those in favor of adopting it in the form in which

it was presented?

Clause 39 of our rules of procedure

provides first for adoption as a

basis, then amendments, and then

adoption as a whole. That means that now we

are voting to adopt as a basis what

the working group or the rapporteur proposed.

So, we are voting on adoption as a basis.

Who is in favor of adopting this

statement as a basis?

[music]

12 votes. The motion is not adopted.

How many people do we have left now?

23, at least according to the registration list. That is,

under what is the quorum being maintained? Check the

registration.

No, from that point of view we do not want to

take a break. All right, let us move on to

the next item. Resolution

on Klyachkov... rapporteur Bangarila.

Vladimir Vasilyevich Kvachkov was

arrested on December 23, 2010, on the

day after the Judicial Panel

for Criminal Cases of the Supreme

Court of the Russian Federation approved

the acquittal issued by the Moscow

Regional Court for Kvachkov, Yashin, Naidenov

and Ronov in the criminal case opened

over the attempted assassination of RAO UES head

Chubais. A new criminal case was

opened by the Main Investigative Directorate

Nikolai, may I read it? Everyone has read it already, after all.

Still, no—actually, it is my right

to read it out if I want. No, the proposal is

not to read it.

Ah, thank you, I will read it out, because the words

So, the criminal case was opened by the Main

Investigative Directorate of the FSB of Russia under

Article 30—well, preparation for an armed

mutiny, involving persons in assisting

terrorist activity, despite the fact

that the materials of the criminal case

contain no evidence that

Kvachkov had a real opportunity

to carry out the actions imputed to him,

despite the fact that there was no indication

of armament and no indication

of large numbers, which are

mandatory for classifying an act under

Article 279, a panel of three professional

judges of the Moscow City Court

handed down a guilty verdict against Kvachkov

sentencing Kvachkov to thirteen years

of imprisonment in a maximum-security penal colony, with

one year of restricted freedom. In his

closing statement, Kvachkov pointed out that

he had been engaged in scholarly work,

developing a concept for separating special

operations forces into a separate branch

of the armed forces, and had also written a scholarly work on

the idea that in the event of war, conducting

guerrilla operations on the territory

of the Russian Federation would be the most

effective way of fighting

intervening forces. The main evidence

against Kvachkov consists of more than 80 hours

of audio recordings of Kvachkov’s conversations with

his acquaintances in the kitchen of his

apartment, where political

problems were discussed, along with the unlawfulness of the ruling

political regime and its

illegitimacy. During the trial, prosecution witnesses

en masse

retracted the testimony that had been

obtained by FSB investigators through coercive methods

of Russia. After witness

Vasilyev spoke about torture, representatives were

barred from entering the courtroom

for members of the media. Journalists

were allowed into the proceedings only at the stage

of closing arguments and the pronouncement of the verdict. In

it, Kvachkov substantiated his thesis that

The people have the right to revolt. This

thesis is not original. This

principle is enshrined in the Universal

Declaration of Human Rights. In its verdict

in Kvachkov's case, the Moscow City Court stated

that the highest form of self-determination

of the Russian people is the right

to participate in a referendum, calling the reference

by KChKO to the direct text of the Universal Declaration of Human

Rights unlawful and contrary

to the Constitution of the Russian Federation,

describing it as a political program.

To charge a person under Article 279, it must

be established which specific

actions aimed at the violent

overthrow or alteration of the constitutional

order were committed by the accused. At present

Vladimir Vasilyevich Kvachkov

is a political prisoner, because

he was convicted under Article 279 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

The wording of this article refers to

actions aimed at the violent overthrow and

alteration of the existing constitutional

order of the Russian Federation. Despite the fact

that Kvachkov in fact did not

have the ability to overturn the political

regime, but actively criticized it,

the existing

punitive law-enforcement system

considered him dangerous. In relation to him there was

a criminal case opened and

Colonel Kvachkov, retired military intelligence officer, was sentenced

to 13 years, which given his advanced

age is effectively equivalent to a life

sentence. The Coordinating Council of

the Opposition calls on

the Russian and international

public to pay special attention

to the case of Colonel Kvachkov and his

associates and will seek

the restoration of legality and justice

for those wrongfully convicted.

This resolution was considered at

a meeting of the human rights group

in the presence of Chirikova and Kaskharov. A quorum

was present, and, well, five people; I was

instructed to correct the technical

things there, yes, that is, well, just

to place the commas, which I, in fact,

did; the text remained unchanged. But now

at this moment

Sakhn has proposed inserting

the final, uh, final... Yes, all right.

Yes. So, uh, therefore I want to tell you, uh,

only one thing: no matter how anyone may feel

about Colonel Kvachkov, yes, I

also have quite a lot of

political disagreements here, but to pass

by this case of arbitrariness, when

a person is in effect being sentenced to

death, because it is clear that with

our maximum-security prisons, after 13 years

Vladimir Vasilyevich, if he comes out at all,

will only come out to the cemetery, yes, and he is 65 years old.

Therefore I would like to propose

that the Coordinating Council of the Opposition, uh,

support this resolution, and thereby

show that we

defend all political prisoners,

regardless of their political

views. Thank you.

Sergei Davidi.

Esteemed colleagues, then I, excuse me, I

was mistaken: there really were five people

present at the meeting. However,

uh, there are, uh, a number of

comments on the proposed resolution. Uh,

first, uh, one way or another, it

was essentially drafted by the lawyer

of the respected Kvachkov, given that

it is still clear that this person is

controversial,

and attitudes toward his political views and

activities vary greatly in society.

We must approach very carefully

all statements concerning

the violations, uh, that took place in

relation to him; they unquestionably did occur. And

to rely only on the lawyer's position

would not be entirely correct. In this

connection, it would be entirely natural, uh,

to compare these positions with the actual

text of the verdict and determine these

violations from it. But despite

the request that was sent in advance

to the respected author, uh, the text

was sent only yesterday evening.

Naturally, there was no opportunity to carry out this

work overnight.

To eliminate all these shortcomings at a

plenary session, I believe, is

impossible.

Alexei Sakhne.

Yes, colleagues,

I am precisely one of those people who

cannot be suspected of any political

closeness to Colonel Kvachkov. And yet

nevertheless, of course, I cannot but acknowledge

that the case against Kvachkov is politically

motivated. It is political

reprisal. It seems to me that the main

difficulty with this resolution lies

in the fact that, having identified

the presence of political motivation in

the case, we should not take responsibility

for what are, in my view, the odious

views of Mr. Kvachkov himself.

Therefore there is a proposal, first:

to set out the final paragraph in

the following wording: "Without sharing the views

and beliefs of Colonel Kvachkov, the CCO

recognizes him as a political prisoner, since

he was convicted under the article," and so on. I

think such an amendment would remove, would remove

this misunderstanding, and we would then

for example not have to explain to our activists

why we are

supporting an obvious anti-Semite and

that of an extreme nationalist there. Conduct,

until we have adopted it as a basis.

I believe that with such an amendment, if

there is, so to speak, the consent of the authors

of the resolution and of the country that

is putting it forward, it can be adopted as a basis and

those additional amendments can be introduced that

colleague Davidis spoke about.

Yes, I agree. The amendment, yes,

concerns conduct, Maksim?

Yes, conduct. I would like to draw your attention,

Mr. Chair, to the fact that discussion

of amendments can take place only after

a decision has been made to adopt it as a basis. And so that we do not

waste time, if discussion of amendments

begins, I suggest that you

well, point out to the speaker

that this is not the time for that, and

continue the discussion on the current

matter. Gennadykov.

Yes, dear colleagues, Dmitry Gudkov and I

will now be forced

to leave. We came here specifically to

show that we are with you, to show all

of our progressive public. Well,

I would like to say the following now.

Thank you. Thank you. Right. And I would like

to speak to the substance of the matter: Alexei

Navalny did not support me in vain

back then on the idea of forming some kind of

committee that would coordinate the work

before the council. We do need to adopt a resolution,

but not one like this. This

should be a memorandum. It should be

a memorandum, some kind of conclusion by some

commission of ours or, perhaps,

a lawyer. And what we can and

should have adopted is a resolution stating that

we condemn excessive harshness, that we

consider the evidence presented, in

general, by and large,

unconvincing. Of course, we are sending

a colonel to certain death, whatever

his views may have been, however much we

agreed with him or not. And that is the kind of

thing we need, at the very least, at minimum

we need an editorial group that

would prepare such resolutions. We cannot

take responsibility for the details

of the case, for certain specific facts there

of the evidence presented, the evidence rejected.

But our political

position should, in some part,

be one that really speaks precisely

to that, but would not take upon itself

responsibility for everything that,

say, precedes it there in

the last paragraph. Dear comrades, I have

a very earnest request and proposal

to consider the possibility of creating such a

group or some body that would

prepare for the organizing council, for

meetings precisely in this kind of framework for

resolutions. Because if we drag this out

now, adopt it as a basis, then

amendments—we are not adopting a bill

here; we must respond quickly and efficiently

to the political situation, but

in this form—please understand me correctly

and believe me—it cannot be adopted in this

form. We need to do something about this,

because there should be a decision there that

the Coordinating Council, add

a minute, heard it, discussed it there,

resolved to take note of it, taking into account

that certain arguments there are convincing,

certain others unconvincing, such-and-such a

position correct, such-and-such a

position incorrect. The investigation acted, acted

in this way or that; or, say, there are clearly visible

signs of commissioned actions by the investigation,

and clear indications there of some kind of provocation.

And the very conclusion there, so to speak, uh,

or rather, the sentence handed to Kvachkov, of course,

is excessively harsh and does not reflect

the danger of the act there, or the absence

of danger in what was done. That is what should have been

written. And we need to prepare that. I would

first of all like to support what

was just said by colleague Kov

regarding the document. A document may

contain some substantive

part describing what happened, but

the main part is, of course, our

attitude toward those actions,

that were carried out; in the proposed

document, this is literally addressed only in the

last sentence of the last paragraph.

Of course, the proportions should be different.

That is the first point. The second is much

more important, because I have heard from

several members of the Coordinating Council already

about the need for the Coordinating Council to express

our

attitude toward the views or opinions of anyone

whatsoever. But the Coordinating Council, in

principle, cannot express its

attitude toward anyone’s views,

just as neither a

political body nor a legal body can do so.

If we have any right—and such a right,

at least, we are trying to assume—

it is the right to speak regarding

actions: the actions of the authorities, the actions

of individual people. And every person has

the right to hold whatever views he holds,

even if we absolutely do not

agree with them, as is also the case for me with

regard, for example,

to the person we are discussing now. But it is not

our business, therefore, to express our

opinion regarding those views. And the

proposal,

that has just been voiced by a whole

number of members of the Coordinating Council,

is extremely dangerous. And

historical experience shows that as soon as

people begin determining which

which views are correct and which

views are incorrect, then in that way

we begin to adopt a totalitarian

approach to determining which

views alone receive

support. This is a very dangerous path.

Therefore, the general proposal is

to revise this document,

which now, of course, looks

much better than the previous

documents on changing the proportion

between the descriptive part and the operative part, and in

any case avoid any assessments

of views and opinions, both now and in any

future resolutions. Indirectly

the previous speaker stole

half my bread from me, because I was just about to

say a simple thing. Indeed,

as soon as the KS begins to talk at length

about which views are

acceptable and which are unacceptable, we

will quite quickly fall out precisely on

that basis. Here we need to stand on a purely

human rights position, it seems to me, and

judge only whether the actions of the authorities are lawful

or unlawful.

However, I admit that sometimes

we encounter situations where we

are defending a person whose views are

quite alien to a large number of

people. And, for example, to be honest,

much of what Klochkov says there

doesn't resonate with me either. However, one could probably

make amendments along the lines of, regardless

of one's attitude toward the views of this or that

person. That is, without saying

that they are right or wrong, but

instead placing ourselves outside his political

position. I think this would in no way

harm our objectivity. Now,

I can say only one thing. This

document is, in my

view, fairly neutral and

deserves to be taken as the

basis and refined in committee. It seems to me

that this is the only correct

path. Thank you for your attention. Let's proceed.

I would also like to speak. I

managed to read this draft, despite

the fact that it was sent out yesterday. And

indeed, my experience dealing with

law enforcement agencies suggests that

in this case, torture was indeed

used. And from the way they

deny this in the reasoning section of the verdict,

it is clear that torture did take place.

Therefore, this case is, of course,

politically motivated. Therefore, I

believe that despite the fact that Klochkov's views

probably contradict mine the most here,

I propose that

the resolution can be adopted as a basis

and, accordingly, all the amendments that

need to be made

will be formulated and put to a second vote. And

I propose adopting as a basis the resolution

by Pochkov. Who is in favor?

19 votes. The motion did not pass.

Do you propose moving on to the next item?

20 votes, even taking Gazaryan into account, in any

case there are not twenty.

Let's take a break. What? Yes.

Let's hear the report of the budget

committee and then take a break.

Again,

perhaps once more

it can be brought back for reconsideration.

The decision is adopted.

Colleagues, all right, let's take a 10-

minute break. Understood.

While everyone is dispersing here and saying goodbye,

then we'll come back and continue.

He stepped out.

Where is he? Press it.

Here, look,

you removed it. Yes, this too.

Well, that's a damaged package. You see, they

are standing there. And they

I see.

Colleagues, I propose we begin our

meeting.

Dear colleagues,

the budget committee presents for your consideration

three reports. The first is the

traditional one on members' contributions. At present

we have a balance of around 300,000. Before

the meeting, I also received contributions

from the Debt group and from Adagamov

of 15,000 each.

And in terms of expenses for this previous

meeting, that balance

will apparently decrease by about 200,000.

Again, if there are any

inaccuracies, there are two reports. These are statements

for the accounts opened by Olga Romanova

specifically for the KS in Sberbank and

a Yandex wallet.

In the correspondence among KS members in recent days

there were questions. There is a small flow

of donations from non-KS members. All these

figures are contained in these reports. In

principle, the system is working. I think

there is no need to change anything in that respect.

Does anyone have any questions?

Your conduct,

yes?

I simply want to ask all colleagues

while we are all still here,

to please sign the statement that we

have just unanimously adopted and approved.

During the break, everyone was given the fourth

fourth page

of this statement. Please put on it

uh,

your initials,

surname, signature, and date.

Everyone

was additionally given a sheet.

conduct as well. Well, I would like to draw your

attention to the fact that this was a statement not

about conduct, but on another item on the agenda

for the day. And I still suggest we return to

considering the budget issue, take

note of it, and then we can

come back to considering

this issue. But not like this.

Come on. Right now we have 23

people standing. Yes,

those who, based on the information

that was handed out, and who managed to

read it, can on the first page

write their surname, patronymic, and home

address. Yes, this is necessary for

submitting the application. On the last page

write your surname, first name, patronymic, and the date,

then sign it.

Is that all correct? Yes.

Yes, that's all correct. Yes, on the first page

it was handed out earlier and is located at the bottom of

the materials that were distributed

for the meeting.

Can't hear anything.

I repeat once again, everyone has a statement

to the Investigative Committee.

In order for it to launch the procedure,

those of you who have had time to

review it, and who have enough information

to make a decision, need to write

your surname, first name, patronymic, and home

address on the first page. And

in addition, everyone was given one more

sheet, which is the final page of

this statement. There you should write your surname,

first name, patronymic, add your signature and the date.

digit

that is, well, those who are ready to do this now

should do so.

Accordingly, Nikolai Bondarik arrived,

we have taken the budget under advisement, if

there are, yes, that is, the budget committee

has reported on the money that was collected in cash

by members of the Coordination Council and has not

reported on the money that

comes in cashlessly to the Yandex wallet and to

the account at Sberbank. And the only

question—once the answer is given, the issue is

completely settled.

And the wallet—apparently Olga's wallet—

Romanova's wallet at the rally and the open collection

on December 18, 2011, has nothing to do with the Coordination Council

of the opposition.

For example, money was collected into that wallet

for the event in 2013

which was organized and held by

civic activists.

Friends, yes, here I want to immediately express

my gratitude to Olga Kordovsova and Igor

Chekasov, activists from St. Petersburg,

who contributed their, so to speak,

intellectual effort. So, in response

to the authorities' actions, I propose a plan

of concrete measures aimed

directly and specifically at fighting

the regime. We need to understand that for Politburo 2.0

our country is a source of personal

enrichment. Everything not directly connected

with exporting raw materials and

servicing the elite, they view as

non-core assets subject to

disposal. We need to understand that the authorities

keep public-sector workers at the minimum level, below which

mass unrest would begin again.

That minimum will not be lowered,

because the authorities are interested in

stability. What will be reduced is the amount of

profit that Politburo 2.0

extracts from the occupied country.

Most importantly, this is a moral choice

for every citizen. It declares: "We do not

feed Putin. In war, every small

battle brings a great victory closer. Every one of our

seemingly small steps, just like

a small battle. These points do not require

sacrifices or hardship from our fellow citizens.

On the contrary, they help them preserve their

money, health, time, and energy. Boycott and

profit. So, first, it is proposed to

boycott Sberbank, VTB, and other

banks under direct

state control. A boycott of

Alfa-Bank as belonging to member of

Politburo 2.0, Fridman; mass

simultaneous closure of accounts and

bank cards, as well as mass

simultaneous non-payment by citizens of

motor vehicle taxes. Specific safety guidance is available

on the website of the Federation

of Russian Car Owners and on other

resources. From this point, for now, I have

excluded, that is, non-payment of other

taxes, because here, naturally,

legal consultation is needed.

will want to come to this Olympics

and be fleeced once again; yes, everyone knows

what the level of service is, and the level of service

in Sochi, yes, so I propose that

people simply not take part in this during that period.

Not participate in anything.

Again, again, a boycott is

fun, a boycott is effective, yes,

a boycott is completely safe, yes. We

simply do not go there. We watch

sports for free there, I don't know, at home

on television. And further, yes, from this

point, in coordination with Okhneny, I

removed the point about, well, ethnic

groups, because that caused them

serious irritation. Well, that is

not the main thing. The main thing is a boycott of this

Olympics. And we will not give our children

to Putin. Here is the fifth point: a boycott

of military conscription. Since Putin generously

grants Russian citizenship to all residents

of Central Asia and the South Caucasus, then let him

recruit there people who like scrubbing toilets

with toothbrushes and building imperial

Those who want to acquire military

skills can enlist for contract

service. Another point is promoting the purchase

of goods online from abroad.

We save money, paying for the same product

one and a half to two times less. So,

accordingly, we are, in a sense, undermining

the economic efficiency of this

state machine. Right. And the seventh

point, again, is that we do not pay Putin VAT and

taxes. And the eleventh point, I foresee, will

perhaps cause some

disagreements here, but nevertheless, the base in

Ulyanovsk. I believe it is beneath the dignity of

a great power to have on its

territory a base belonging to a military bloc of which it

is not a member. We are not in NATO,

therefore we should not have

NATO bases on our territory. We do not

help the United States in the genocide of Afghans. We do not

want to participate, even indirectly, in someone else’s

war. We do not want to provide our

territory for drug trafficking.

The Opposition Coordination Council demands

the withdrawal of the NATO base from Ulyanovsk. That is the kind of

point I propose we discuss as well. Although

I foresee some objections, I can

say that at least citizens,

our compatriots, will see that we are, in

general, not grant-suckers, yes, and we are

not grant-eaters. We are people, we are Russians, we are

citizens of this country, interested first and foremost

in our own country, not in whether

someone in the West likes us or

doesn’t. Frankly, I do not care whether I am liked

in the West or not. What matters is that

we are liked here, by our

voters, by our people. And

no mechanisms have been proposed for their

actual implementation. Well, there are points

that cause confusion there, such as

the boycott of migrants and their market stalls.

For my part, I proposed

focusing on the last point,

which, it seems to me, lies

within the realm of reality. To try

to organize the existing

protest activists horizontally in at least

two or three major cities—we really

can do that. And we, as the Left Front, have

tried to work on this. And some success

was even achieved, relatively speaking, along

this path. If the Coordination Council, with its

media and other resources,

joined in, it would be a very

big step. Everything else, it seems to me,

is just wishful thinking and simply,

should be taken under advisement and not discussed until

a proposal is made regarding the method of

implementation. Thank you.

One speech in defense of this

resolution.

Ah, Ilya, by the way,

dear colleagues, I, uh, want to draw

your attention to the fact that we all interact

with people. Apart from

our Coordination Council, each of us has

broad horizontal networks of

communication. I can assure you of that. Wait,

do not interrupt. I did not interrupt you.

Of all the points that

of all

I call the members to order, please do not

speak out in

what kind of educational institution did you even study at

microphone.

I want to draw attention to one point

from the rather long list that was

mentioned.

It is a hunger strike in support of political

prisoners. You can joke about it. Fine.

About who fasted for how long. I can tell

those present that I, for example, once

in Lefortovo (a Moscow prison) went on hunger strike for 12 days, three

of them without water. I am ready to do it again.

The rules of procedure contain Article 45 on absentee

voting. In it there is a final,

there is no text of the rules right now. There is

a final sentence, which reads

as follows: After approval

of the final version of the Coordination Council’s rules of procedure,