Alexei Navalny’s speech at the opening of the campaign office in Novosibirsk

Yes, it is the third city, the capital

of Siberia. It is a city with a high level of

education, and so on. But most

importantly, it is a city they are afraid of.

And I say this without any irony and without

any exaggeration: they are specifically afraid of you

as well, because we saw it

quite recently in the elections. In the elections to the

Legislative Assembly, which does not really

decide much. We went there together with

another party, and where it was fairly

difficult to run an election campaign

and difficult to achieve major

political success, yet even there we

were not registered—because they were afraid of you

because they got scared, because they all

know perfectly well what Novosibirsk is and

what a high level of education means,

what a big city means, and what it means

to be a big city that understands it is

an example of this ugly

system where, yes, everyone was robbed there and

everything was dragged off to Moscow, the federal center.

They are afraid,

well, if you like, of what you might call—excuse the

hackneyed expression—the voice of Siberia. They

are afraid that people here will express

political views. You are very

frightening to them. I mean that completely seriously.

Probably the hardest thing is for you yourselves

to realize that, quite literally, in the

Kremlin they are truly afraid of you gathered

here. But it is a fact, and when you,

when all of us realize it together and begin

to use it, things will become much

better for all of us. Second, proceeding directly from

the first point.

Make them even more afraid,

even more. They are right to be afraid and

they should be afraid. We are running our campaign in

the regions, a real election

campaign, the kind all

candidates—normal candidates—are supposed to run.

And we are opening our second headquarters in Novosibirsk

after St. Petersburg, not in Moscow, because

we want this voice

of the regions to be heard, so that political activity,

political events, take place throughout the whole

country. Moscow alone is not enough for us to

put pressure on this government. No matter how many people

gather on Bolotnaya (Bolotnaya Square in Moscow, a major protest site), it will still

always be insufficient until

we generate a political

signal from here, from Siberia. You have it here,

perhaps even more than in

Moscow. Look, here you have

rallies in minus 30 degrees Celsius (−22°F)

against housing and utility services. At the last

rally, I heard there were about

1,500 people. In Moscow, issues like housing and utilities do not draw that many

people, and Moscow has 10 million

residents. In that sense, you have that signal

and that nerve here. What we want

is simply to make our headquarters into a kind of

wire that we will stretch from Moscow and

plug into the Krem— and it will hit everyone there

very hard with this high

voltage.

And ours is there in order to generate this voltage

here with your help. Uh-huh.

The third thing.

Right now, for the election campaign,

a total of 25,000 volunteers have signed up across the

country. In Novosibirsk,

already 405 people have said that they are

ready to work for free on the

election campaign.

And that is an enormously powerful force. Because I

can tell you that we have just

conducted

focus groups across the country. In

Yekaterinburg, here as well, in Novosibirsk,

in St. Petersburg, in Moscow, everywhere,

everywhere, everywhere. And we found out what

the main sources are from which people get

information about politics in general. Where do

people get their sense of how to vote?

Who shapes the political

picture in their minds? What do you think those

sources are? The media, Channel One,

Television, Channel One.

And what—what is even more important?

The internet. And what else?

Friends,

right,

right, in every focus group everyone

told us one crucial thing. Where do

you actually get your understanding of what is happening in

the country, of whom to vote for? Everyone

said: I have one friend who

explained everything to me.

I said this in St. Petersburg, and I am saying it

here. Here, it is probably even more important.

Each of you must become that kind of friend,

that kind of relative, that kind of acquaintance,

that kind of neighbor, that kind of, I do not know,

person who rides the elevator

with someone and says:

"Sergei, right now I am going to give you

a political briefing. And be sure of this:

no matter how much television brainwashes people,

no matter how much they watch

Solovyov, Kiselyov, and so on, even

if they seem like, I do not know,

absolute hardliners, what people often call vatniki (a derogatory term for aggressively pro-Kremlin patriots),

or people who, well, that is it, they

see nothing but Putin and do not want

to believe in anything else—talk to them. I

guarantee that you will persuade them otherwise,

because

most importantly, apart from counter-

apart from propaganda, they have nothing to set against us,

because the whole truth is entirely

on our side. Well, what can they really object to?

What substantive arguments do they have against us?

You are State Department agents, your Navalny stole

all the money. And besides that, well, like,

do you know, grandma, who is the youngest

a billionaire in Russia? Who is the youngest?

billionaire in Russia?

Kirill Shamalov, if you take Putin's circle. And do you know,

ma'am, that Russia ranks by number of

billionaires, again, second in the

world, even though 25 million people here

live below the poverty line.

And do you know, ma'am, just

tell me, I recorded a video, I'll release it soon,

about Novosibirsk, among other things.

The budget of the city of Novosibirsk—

tell me, who knows?

36 billion rubles. Shameful. What, you don't know?

You're running away.

And at the same time, at that very same time,

on Moscow's New Year holiday lights

how much was spent? I wrote: 7 billion rubles.

7 billion rubles were spent on light bulbs,

which hang there for, what, 3 weeks, 4

weeks, and it has already come out that the bulbs

were supplied by the Rotenbergs, and most of

that money was stolen. This is what we need to

fight, and nothing can outweigh it. No

propaganda, neither Solovyov nor Kiselyov, can

do anything about it. We just need

to go out to people and explain it. We will definitely

explain it, definitely tell them. Today I

held several—I'm wrapping up now—

moving on to questions—several

press conferences and several meetings with

journalists.

And almost all of them asked me: "So, well,

what is Putin's secret?" But he

has such high support. So

there must be some secret to him, and

something special. He knows something

we don't. Some hidden knowledge.

And the answer to that is: there is absolutely nothing there,

because this is no different from

Robert Mugabe's regime in Zimbabwe, which

stayed in power for 33 years and wrecked everything. You've probably seen,

photos online of people

hauling money around in wheelbarrows to buy

a Pepsi-Cola. The same thing in

Uzbekistan, the same thing in Tajikistan,

the same thing in Belarus. He's an ordinary

dictator, an ordinary authoritarian leader,

who simply lies through his teeth.

It's just that, well, he outdid everyone else,

because he lies more aggressively than anyone else,

because he steals more brazenly than anyone else,

because while others still, in some way,

in the Yeltsin years, were embarrassed to

turn their sons-in-law directly into billionaires,

but he wasn't embarrassed. Others

were embarrassed to make their friends from St. Petersburg City Hall

the richest and most powerful people

in the country. But he isn't embarrassed.

Lies. Control over the judicial system,

election rigging. There are no other

secrets. And to all of this we can

effectively oppose

the real truth and our real

program.

Every point in our program, I can simply

state here responsibly, in

focus groups and opinion polls,

is supported by more than 86% of people. From

introducing a minimum wage to introducing

a law on combating illicit

enrichment, redistributing money

back to the regions. The majority of

the country's population supports our

program. I can tell you that 100%.

All we have to do

is get started, go out, persuade people, and

tell them that this alternative exists,

that these candidates exist. And this is not Alexei Navalny's

campaign, but our common

campaign. It is Novosibirsk's campaign,

which will finally force Moscow

to do something useful for the country. I

am sure that I will be able to rely on you. I

will do everything so that you can

rely on me, and we will, without a doubt,

win. Thank you very much. I'm ready to answer

questions.

You said that this regime, so to speak,

has nothing to set against us. I don't

agree with you, because this regime

has, so to speak, beneficiaries,

to whom it has granted

fairly broad opportunities, that is,

legal invulnerability, the ability

to steal, and so on. Well, you

understand,

isn't that

significant?

Excellent question. Did you hear the question?

I'll repeat it. So, you said that this

regime has nothing to set against us, but

nevertheless this regime has given

a certain number of beneficiaries

unlimited opportunities to enrich themselves,

to have protection, immunity.

Excellent. And how many such beneficiaries are there?

1%, no more. That's exactly the point,

you see, these beneficiaries, the real

beneficiaries, amount to 1,000 families, or maybe

500 families overall at the federal

level, who have quite literally become

billionaires or multimillionaires,

who fly their dogs around on private jets.

Alexei, I disagree again.

Well, how many then? Fine, 1%.

I'm not necessarily talking right now about

members of parliament and so on.

Well, suppose

many people got a little bit, but a share nonetheless. And now they have already

latched on, and they don't want change,

because they are already major

All right. And what about big businesspeople?

Well, I can tell you for sure that

there are no greater haters of this regime

than major businesspeople. These

major businesspeople first

come and say: "Vladimir

Vladimirovich Putin, we want a fourth

sentence. Shorkhin recently said that." And then

they come out and curse them out in the strongest terms.

And I would simply point all of you to

a perfect example, yes, of

the vested interests that are playing out right

now before your very eyes. Who recently ran off to

Ukraine?

Maksakova. There you go. There they are,

the vested interests.

Huge money. I mean, an apartment on

Tverskaya Street—really,

a multimillionaire.

That woman danced—or whatever it is she

does, sings at the Mariinsky Theatre (a major St. Petersburg opera and ballet theater). An enormous

amount of money, a personal friendship with

Surkov. They are major vested interests,

but all the same, one thing

happened, and they ran off to Ukraine and

started saying that all this time they had been

suffering, that they were being forced, that they were miserable.

Actually, here’s something funny, I’ll tell

you a small, very Samara-style story.

When we had already started writing

about Maksakova and Voronenkov,

my investigations department came to me

and said: "What have you written? We got a lot sent to our

black box about them—there was

video of them sitting somewhere in Monaco and

in places like that, drinking something,

eating. And their acquaintances wrote too,

saying: here’s just a funny fact

for you to laugh at over at your Anti-Corruption Foundation

(ACF). Even when we were going after

Voronenkov and exposing their real estate,

they were discussing in their own circle that both

he and she were, it turned out, big

fans of the Anti-Corruption Foundation,

because, sure, they go after us, but on the

whole, it’s still nice that this scum—well, that someone—is

taking on the bosses somewhere.

That’s really what all of this rests on—a colossus

with feet of clay. Yes, at the top there are a thousand

families who are billionaires, yes, there is

some layer of people who are

beneficiaries of all this. Of course. But

overall, the gap between them and everyone else is so

huge that

the support base is tiny, because yes, here in

Novosibirsk, sure,

there’s the governor, and these

utility bosses who have just raised your

rates by 20%.

Nobody in Moscow, a little bit,

yes, except maybe a few. For a long time now in

Moscow—but otherwise there really aren’t any of these

vested interests. That’s the whole point. All of this

is sustained solely by the fact that we don’t

believe, and we sit at home, not

engaging in political action. It rests on nothing else.

One time in Moscow

people came out into the streets, and they immediately started talking about

political reform. Gubernatorial

elections were brought back, and so on. It’s just that

later people left the streets, and they rolled

all of it back. But in reality

there are so few of these vested interests that

even within the government no one is really

interested in it. Any businessman, even an

oligarch, will tell you—I’ve heard this kind of thing a million

times—my business is worth a billion right now.

And if it weren’t for

Putin, my business would be worth 3 billion,

because capital—because this

regime crushes the market value of all

enterprises. That’s all. It’s very important

to understand that clearly. And all these

vested interests—we will overcome them and move forward. Yes,

sorry, Alexei, I’ll just add a little

about today’s local reality.

We didn’t drag anyone here by the hand.

There was one email, and all people had to do was

click a button. Yes, and everyone knows that more than

100 people are here right now. But this morning

your vested interests showed up—there were

five of them, they stood around for 15 minutes and then

scattered because it was cold. That’s all of

Novosibirsk’s vested interests. Today they turned up

in the grand total of five people.

Sir, and who are you?

Sergei Bolko, coordinator of the headquarters in

Novosibirsk.

Well, they’re not exactly going to come at you with their fists.

A thousand families. They’ve got the cops, they’ve got the courts. What

are you even talking about?

What do you mean, they’ve got them? What does that even mean? It’s all

nonsense.

But Alexei, you do have a criminal conviction, don’t you?

I do have a conviction.

I have four convictions. So what?

And he has a conviction too, because

he was tried here. And naturally, well,

again, a thought experiment. You are

Putin, you have a billionaire son-in-law, you are the

absolute ruler of the largest

country on the planet. You possess a kind of

power that no one else has. You are

constantly on the cover of Time

magazine. The question is: are you ready? Well, some

people are making noise and saying, "Hey,

that’s enough, you’ve been in charge for 17 years, come on,

step aside." But would you agree

to that voluntarily—would you leave the first time you heard it?

Of course not. Of course you would

bring into play—as you said—the cops,

the prosecutor’s office, and the courts, naturally.

They use them. They always have. And

all these regimes have used them. But the history

of humanity shows that they

fall, these regimes, because this is,

again, forgive the grand words,

the classic struggle of good against evil. They

will resist, they will do anything,

whatever it takes, they will jail people and everything

else. But in fact, even

now, all of our political struggle

doesn’t look super dangerous.

Well, the people standing there on that

platform—you, well, Boyko still hasn’t been convicted yet

for now. I don't want to jinx it, but

being right on the very, very

cutting edge probably carries some

risks, but overall they rely

not even on the fact that they've

crushed everyone, but on the fact that we ourselves don't

believe in our own strength. The question sta-

my question is probably of a technical

nature. My name is Vladimir Tsivilizovich. You

said that this is not Navalny's campaign,

but all of ours.

Yes.

So here's my question. Why isn't there a list

of Navalny people already today that would

be promoted already now? In case

you personally are not allowed to run. But there could be

a number two, a number three, a

number four. We're ready to give our votes to

them too. And they would say that when we are

elected president, we will announce nationwide

popular elections for prosecutor general.

And here we have Alexei Navalny,

who

look, for me that's entirely... No,

look, look, this is an interesting

thing. And in a way, the authorities are

pushing us exactly toward this, because

they're saying: "Guys, well, we

won't let Navalny run," wink wink, so

let your number two be,

for example, Yavlinsky."

That's what I'm asking you. Do you agree with

No, you name your list.

So, this is an important point. Thank you for

the question.

You're welcome. The moment we

say, fine, we'll make

a list: if you remove this one, there'll be this one;

if you remove that one, there'll be another. At that moment

we've already lost, because we've already

agreed that this one can be removed, and they

will keep acting that way. If we have not

one but 100, then they'll start—they'll

conduct opinion polls, figure out that

the seventy-third person is really,

well, I don't know, weak, with a low

level of support, and they'll remove all 72. The 72

will be shot,

Of course they won't be shot; they'll just open criminal cases against 72 of them

and bar them from running.

And that's exactly the point of the campaign, again, why

it's easiest to explain this here in Novosibirsk

because in your elections here

for the first time in the entire

country's electoral history,

a candidate—not even "against all," but

the candidate "spoiled ballot" got

more than 5%. Nobody ever does that.

A person came to vote, and to do that you have to

deliberately spoil your ballot. It

cleared the threshold, and uh

amazingly, it should be sitting in

the legislative assembly, have a faction, you understand,

a spoiled ballot should have

a faction in the legislative assembly, because they

understood very well that the best

way to win elections is not

fraud, not lying media, but simply

keeping candidates off the ballot. That's all. That's what

we have to fight. And now, returning

to my chances: I have a criminal conviction.

And not just one. I can say that with

pride, because, well, as I

said, you are convicted too, or

thank God, stay unconvicted. Well,

under the Constitution, by law, by

right, by moral, by

ethical standards, I have the right to take part

in elections. I want to take part in them. I

will fight for the right to represent

all of you, so that this is not my

election campaign, but yours

election campaign. And I will not

back down from that. I hope you won't

back down either, right? There was a question.

You know this Kremlin-style

argument: "Do you want the 1990s again?" You

understand that if you come to power

and start changing this system, that

will inevitably mean upheaval for the country.

And inevitably, people who don't understand

cause and effect will, will

think that under Putin things were

good, things were stable, you and I were

being steadily screwed over, and we kind of didn't notice

it. And now you're saying: "Let's

change this, change that." And

they'll again say: "He's

to blame—not because things were bad for the previous 20 years

and now we're changing them, but because he

came in and started changing everything."

Excellent question. All right, let's

list these terrible upheavals. What

upheavals will happen? Fine. I come in

and I jailed

1,000 real crooks through a fair

trial, a jury trial—well, rather, not

jailed. A president can't jail anyone.

We put them on trial. And all these

characters—there's Shuvalov, there's Sechin,

all the relatives, this whole

gang—end up in the dock. Would people

be unhappy about that?

No. But there will be people who resist.

Well, there will simply be people resisting.

We'll suppress that resistance,

and people will be even more satisfied. Introducing

a minimum wage of 25,000 rubles. Introducing

a law against illicit enrichment.

This is important. Look, when

our big problem is the reforms

of the 1990s, right, because back then,

strictly speaking, no real reforms were

carried out—they simply divided up

the property.

Besides, in the 1990s everything was like that

because oil prices had fallen. But if

we go into the election understanding all those

mistakes; we are doing this because we are running in

the elections in order to truly

change the country, in order to

redistribute the national wealth,

in order to carry out these reforms.

There won’t be any discontent. I really don’t see any

reasons, in fact, for

any upheavals at all; there won’t be revolutionary sailors running through

the streets, and there won’t be

anything dramatic happening. Everyone will simply

do their jobs properly. And the Investigative

Committee of the Novosibirsk Region won’t be

assigning six investigators just to

put Volkov in prison, but will instead deal with your

wonderful bridge over the river, which

at first, as you know, was supposed to cost 93 billion

rubles, then 55 billion rubles. And somehow,

well, it’s considered, well, apparently normal,

that plus or minus 40 billion rubles a year

just disappears, and nobody pays attention. And

when the Investigative Committee—whether or not

we even need it is another question. We don’t

all the more so. So, when

the Investigative Committee starts dealing with

its own responsibilities, when the governor starts

doing his job, when the mayor

of the city does his job and,

for example, when the utility companies come to you

and say: "We’re raising the tariff by 20%." The mayor

of the city will say: "Guys,

please give me your investment program."

I’ll publish it. I’ll publish an audit of your

tariff, and then we’ll discuss it." What kind of

upheaval would that be? We’d just be beside ourselves

with joy. We’d be dancing in circles,

getting much more money, and everything

would be much better if, well, if

we actually dealt with these things. And for

me it’s important that there always be, well,

some counterbalance. They’re used to thinking: now we’ll

elect him, and that’s it, we won’t have to do

anything else, and he’ll do everything

for us. And all the others, all those who are sitting

there now doing fuck-all and collecting

a salary—our money—will just keep

sitting there too. And every one of them will have to be replaced.

You just took the words right out of my mouth.

It’s not enough just to elect a president;

after that, once you’ve elected him, you need to stand

behind him with that card, only

now with a whole stack of cards, holding them over

his head.

In other words, power corrupts

any person.

Never in human history has there been

a single case where someone stayed in power for more than 10

years and didn’t become corrupted. That has

never happened. And there is no such perfect

person to whom this wouldn’t happen. So

our task is to make sure that by

the tenth—or say the eighth—year

of a presidency, if he’s lucky enough to serve 8

years, and when he says: "Ah, maybe

I should get another term?"—then bang, you’re out

and it’s on to the next election and a new person.

So there won’t be any upheaval,

if the government actually

functions properly. Next question.

Yes. Right. Alexeivich, tell us,

please, what are you going to do about

mandatory military service when you

become president?

I didn’t quite catch the guy’s question.

Ah,

well then, before conscription is abolished, we’ll

send those who, apparently, should have served but didn’t

to do their mandatory service,

for example, Defense Minister Shoigu. Because when

I see the Kremlin starting to push the line that

everyone has to serve,

and that students are freeloaders, then I

served—

neither Medvedev, nor Shoigu, nor Putin—none of them

served their mandatory military service at all.

As far as I know, out of that whole elite, only Gref and

maybe Mironov served somewhere. They’re our famous paratroopers,

supposedly. But otherwise, basically none of them served.

All right, nowadays people may not serve

because there are deferments now.

But how they managed not to serve in

the 1970s and 1980s—that’s

the big question. Overall, I believe that

a professional volunteer army is more advanced and

more appropriate. I look at Russia’s budget,

and we spend almost 40% of the budget on national defense

and security. I can see quite clearly

that we absolutely can

maintain a professional army, we can

pay contract soldiers enough that

especially in the regions, people would join and

earn a decent living. And that’s the

direction we need to move in—toward

a professional army. Yes, some conscription-based

training camps are needed. Regular,

short-term work overall with

the population is fine, but overall the army

should be professional, and that’s the direction

we need to move in. We almost started doing that, but

then for some reason we gave it up and went back to

conscription. And then there’s this nonsense about

scientific companies. Just tell me,

here in Novosibirsk, with Akademgorodok (the city’s major science hub) and so on,

is it really possible to create a scientific company by

taking people, gathering them up,

shaving their heads, and saying: "You sit here,

please, in this barracks and

invent something."

That’s nonsense; it doesn’t work. So

that’s not what we need. Of course, the future belongs only

to a professional volunteer army.

Yes,

Alexei, some of your

supporters, among whom I count myself,

consider the most basic, fundamental

issue for everyone—or at least the most

pressing ethical problem.

Sorry, but still—Crimea. Could you

say something encouraging,

so that they could support you more actively

? You need to say: "And what would be

motivating for you?"

Well, look, this is a complicated problem. And

to say something motivating about it is

difficult, because this is an issue that divides society

radically. And even, I think, here

it will divide many people. That is why it was

invented. Putin needed

a split, a new split, yes, and that is why

this whole Crimea issue was created. And that is why now

there is a war in Ukraine. But I am afraid that

I cannot say anything especially motivating

about it. I can say what is real, how it

is going to be, because, well, if we look,

open a world map and you will see a lot

of territories like this, from Northern Cyprus to

the Falkland Islands. And our islands claimed by Japan

as well—they keep discussing and discussing them,

and every year before each delegation from

Japan everything gets discussed, and a peace

treaty is still not signed, yes,

formally we are still in a state of war with Japan. And

the truth is that this is

an unsolvable problem. Unfortunately, it cannot

be solved.

You will all become grandfathers and grandmothers,

those of you who have not yet, and your grandchildren may

become parents and grandparents themselves, and

the Crimea problem still will not be resolved.

Northern Cyprus, again—so, all in all,

what the best president should do is

come in and begin, at the very least,

a dialogue about holding a referendum. Well,

first, acknowledge that that so-called referendum was not

a referendum at all, it was nonsense.

A proper referendum needs to be held.

And then, after that, suffer through

decades of it. Will Russia return to

the civilized world in that case?

Well, it will.

One way or another, it will,

it will, it will. But look, there was

a similar situation between France and

Germany, when after the Second World

War, part of French territory, after

Germany's defeat, was transferred to

France, and then in the 1970s

a referendum was held and they rejoined

Germany. It was very complicated, very

painful for everyone. A whole lot of

politicians go crazy, the population goes

crazy, nobody likes giving up territory and

so on. But in the end they were reunited

again.

Was that after the First World War or after

the Second?

Not after the Second—Saar. Only after the First.

After the Second, only in 1955,

not in the 1970s, in fifty-

five.

The Saar referendum. Exactly. And

so Russia will undoubtedly return to

the civilized world, because it

is part of it. The fact that right now our

part of the civilized world has been

seized by some hellish barbarians

who are basically running around with clubs,

does not mean that we have ceased to be

part of the civilized world. Of course, we

remain part of it and always will. But

this issue, I do not know, apparently is not

very inspiring, judging by what I can see in

your eyes. Yes, please. And

Our goal is 10,000 signatures, and there are 400 of us.

That is only 25 per person. I think everything

will work out. And we do not have a question.

The next question: will you return the presidential term

to 4 years, or leave it at 6

years?

Ah, thank you for the question. First of all,

that is not really our main goal. That is our

technical goal. It is the minimum program.

I have no doubt that here in Novosibirsk

—how many signatures did we collect?

17,000. We nearly lost our minds. It was

very expensive, but it was 17,000

for the Legislative Assembly campaign, considering that

80% of people do not even

understand what the Legislative Assembly is or why

it is needed. So I have no doubt that

we will collect these signatures, but our task is

much bigger.

In Novosibirsk there will be no fewer than

3,000 volunteers. An enormous

number. Our task is to learn

to govern ourselves, and that will be

a tremendous force.

As for the term, the main thing that a

good president of Russia should do,

the main thing I plan to do is

cut back my own powers.

Russia is the way it is now,

and the government is so grotesque, because all

questions in the country are decided by the president. I

was reading before you came in.

The president approved the appointment of the

head of the Bolshoi Theatre.

The president made some statement about St. Isaac's

Cathedral. What is even going on? Really,

why is any of this necessary? The president

was dealing with that Kekhman business of yours and

everything else. This simply should not

be happening at all. It should not even remotely

be like this. So, more than 4 years for one

term? Under no circumstances. That is why one

of the first decrees will be to restore that law,

to reverse its repeal. And in general, many powers

need to be taken away from Moscow, and they need to be taken

away from the president as well. Here,

the president appoints the heads of

theaters, personally approves transfers from

clubs—Zenit, which footballer should be moved

where. In other words, he deals with everything,

he meets with cultural figures, he

gives writers reviews of their books, he

opens and closes stadiums. Do you

often see the president of a developed

the country, as he goes around cutting

ribbons at the opening of hospitals and all

sorts of other things. No, really, in

Novosibirsk, for example, you should have

your own money, your own governor,

whom you elected; he opened it,

they built it, cut the ribbon, and that's it. This

isn't the federal government's business at all.

So yes, absolutely, we are shortening

the term of office. That's the very least that

needs to be done to the institution of the presidency

for rights to start functioning.

Yes, a question nearby.

Here's a question. Most of the people gathered here

are

young people, and the volunteers are young

people too. And, roughly speaking, the people who watch

Navalny's bloggers are young people too.

What do we do about everyone else? I mean the older

population, for the most part, watches

television, and accordingly,

you can imagine the conclusions they draw from that.

And how do we get information across to them?

Well, where do young people come from?

May I give an example,

because there's always an example. Someone

wants to give one—I do. Go ahead. I

literally spoke with my mom the day before yesterday,

she watches TV, and she and

my dad really love Channel One (Russia's main state TV channel), all that

stuff. We were just talking. I simply

told her about Shuvalov and Miller, and

my mom said... And I said, "Well, of course,

nothing will change, because you're

going to go vote for Putin." My mom

was silent for a moment and said, "No, you know,

I'm going to go vote for Navalny. You

convinced me."

Thank you.

I expected your story

to end with—and I was already thinking

that she would say her mom said:

"No, I'm still for Putin." And then I would ask her:

"Well, ask your mother,

who does she love more—you or Dmitry

Kiselyov (a prominent pro-Kremlin TV host)?"

Once again.

All older people, people of an older generation,

have younger people in their lives. And no matter what

they may say, no matter how much you

argue with them about politics, you will

100% change their minds. One hundred percent—the polls

show it, sociology shows all of this.

That's the first thing. Second,

it's simply a feature of political

movements all over the world. And in Russia, in

particular, volunteers are always young.

But, for example, in the Moscow mayoral election,

where I got 30%, if there hadn't been

fraud, there would have been a runoff, in

which, I think, I would have won. We

conducted polling, and my 30% included

votes from pensioners.

That's simply a fact. And pensioners feel all the same

things too; it's just that you need

to get the information to them. In Moscow that

was easier; here it's harder, but it

can still be done. Besides,

pensioners are easier to persuade, because

all these issues with utility and housing service rates

hit them harder, and all these things about

wealth affect them more strongly, because

they are people from the Soviet Union, when

there was no wealth like this. And I,

for example, made some of my own

small personal observations.

Remember how Sechin's son

was awarded, at the age of twenty-four, the Order of

Honor, the Order of Labor, something like that. And

that really drove pensioners crazy,

because everyone knows that for a teacher

to receive a labor medal like that,

you need something like 30 years of work as a teacher,

teaching classes for a million hours, whereas here

some guy was just handed that

medal. So we simply need to

talk to them, to all these

older people, understanding that

they are older people, but we will definitely

win them over, because once again

the truth is the most important thing in our country

here.

One second, wait, I have

a technical request—there's just

no more room for people there. Let's move a little

closer this way if we can.

Let's squeeze in a bit,

okay? Thank you very much.

Could someone help organize the people?

Excellent. First here, then there. Yes.

Right. Oh, sorry,

what will happen to the Yarovaya package (a set of restrictive anti-terror laws)? Now

Leonid will probably—Leonid,

will probably add something. But who among you,

please tell me, signed

our petition about this law?

There. Thank you.

Thank you.

Seriously, everyone signed it?

Yes, yes. Yes.

Well, in fact, despite the fact

that the Kremlin is trying to disguise all this,

we did win, at least temporarily. What did they

do now? They postponed it for three

or four years. Why? Because even

the formal reason is that this

petition, once it reached Abyzov's commission (a government advisory body),

Abyzov, who profits from your

electricity. They made the decision that

they would postpone it. Lyonya, go ahead then.

That's right. Basically, while I

stole that glory, the signatures were collected.

The signatures were collected, the signatures came in.

Abyzov's commission didn't want

to consider it, so we took them to court. Through the court, we

forced them to review it, they

assembled the commission. And at that moment,

well, the telecom operators' lobby,

that, well, no one really wants to spend money on,

had already gained enough momentum,

to, uh, step into some

conflicts between other

groups that wanted to decide

how to carve up the money from this, uh,

packaging-related thing. And, mm,

so, using our petition as a battering ram

in a sense, they said: "Well, look

people are against it here too. Let's

put it off for now, since you still

can't come to an agreement. Whether Chemezov or

Sechin or, uh, Bortnikov or Patrushev

will be the ones, so to speak, spending that money

tens of billions a year there. And they

inserted that into the discussion very carefully. And so

right now the status is exactly this: it's been postponed for

about four years, and in 4 years Russia

will be completely different, right.

Let's take two questions from over there, and then

we'll come back to this side. Yes, please.

Alexei, I know that you have a

polling team. I think that's

great. Please tell us a little

about it. Well, just a correction. We do

have a polling team. We

publish our surveys, and our campaign headquarters will,

uh, use the best, the most

modern polling methods. This is important.

We tested it in the mayoral election. You

know, we proved that we

forecast the results better than anyone else

and everything else. For us, this is

very important. But what have we done now?

Volkov can add more as well. We rented

a new office for them and moved them into a separate space. And,

that means it will be conducting more

surveys, including

regional ones, and we will have

access to real data about

what people actually think. Yes,

I'd also like to add a couple of words, yes.

Thank you for the question, because we have

something completely unique in Russian

history that no one has ever done before.

The law

allocates only

40 days for a presidential campaign in Russia. I mean, you

know, in America they start

campaigning a year and a half to two years in advance,

they announce their candidacy. But in

Russia, by law, elections are scheduled

90 days ahead, then there's signature collection,

registration, all of that. And the campaign itself

is supposed to fit into 40 days. We have

a country of enormous size, right, and

just 40 days. So all of this

is built around some completely fake

campaign. In reality, you can't run any

campaign in 40 days. Alexei

announced his candidacy more than a year

in advance. And that is, basically, something new for

Russian politics. No one had done that before.

After that, everyone else also rushed to say

yes, yes, we're running too. And that extra year

was no accident. We

finally have the luxury, for me

as campaign manager, to actually

manage something, because even

the mayoral campaign started

suddenly. There were two, two and a half months until the election.

No one expected Sobyanin to resign

and trigger it. All the deadlines there were shortened

because the election was called upon

his resignation. And that was it. There, you had to, well,

China is bigger, China, China farther.

Basically, you just had to manage to hand out 20

million leaflets. That was, basically, all

you had time to do. Beyond that, well,

you run a poll,

it takes a week to conduct, a week to process

the data, two weeks are gone, and in the context of

a two-month campaign everything has changed, whereas

here we have a year. So we, we have

the luxury of making mistakes, we have the luxury of

correcting things. Soon we'll

understand: right now we have 122,000

sign-ups, people have simply registered on the website,

and we can already see

the regional distribution. Then,

they'll start coming to campaign offices. We

will understand which of these people are real,

which are fake, and how much we can

count on them. Then we'll

step up certain activities, we'll conduct

polling. Thanks to all these

tools, we'll have the ability

to manage things thoughtfully. Okay, here we need

to hold more events, in this

region, I don't know, maybe Alexei needs to

come again, speak again at a

rally. In that region, maybe we need

more online advertising or

to hand out more campaign materials. So in that sense we will have

an absolutely

modern campaign, and a campaign of a kind that

Russia has never had before, because

there has never been a campaign in Russia lasting

a full year.

Yes, let's send a question there too.

Hello, Alexei.

Hello. My question is this.

Will the Anti-Corruption Foundation (ACF) pay

attention to the company Sibeka in

Novosibirsk, or have you not even

planned to do that? And are you

aware of this situation,

about the 15%?

And even that, that was kind of

a little hurtful just now.

Who owns the company Sibega?

Abyzov. But that's been one of our longtime clients. We have been

watching it closely. Here's the thing,

the campaign office and our supporters here, the Progress Party,

they told me that you have

a delicate situation here, which

is that all the politicians

have now united simply against

the tariff, against Sibeko. And everyone said

already that now Navalny has come

in order to politicize our

issue, draw attention to himself, and so on, and so

forth. So I was asked to speak about this

carefully. Well, carefully—but since it has come up,

I’ll speak bluntly. Ah, well,

I, in the Moscow elections, ran with

a bill on auditing housing and utility tariffs. I

introduced it afterward. I believed then and still believe

that all energy-sector monopolists are

absolute crooks. And here, well,

it’s the classic story: some guy, damn it, worked at RAO

in Novosibirsk, and then suddenly

it turned out that all of Novosibirsk’s

energy sector belongs to him, and now he’s

also, damn it, a minister—and he won’t admit

that Novosibirsk’s energy sector belongs

to him. And they say: "Now you pay

20% more, but we won’t show you

the breakdown." And meanwhile, how much do they have,

Andrei, as ordered? 1.5 billion rubles.

Yes, 15 billion in profit. They say: "You

the public should pay us another billion, while

at the same time we have 1.5 billion in profit, with which

we’ll buy a yacht."

Of course we’ll look into it. Of course,

we’ll do all of this. We, well, it’s always

just a long process, because

simply, well, the fact that they’re crooks

and are pocketing money is already

obvious. But we need to show

something interesting. There are offshore schemes there,

it’s complicated and takes time. But the main thing

I want to say is that

you have a rally here on March 18, and

the tariff only comes into effect starting in July.

When in July everyone gets

their utility bill, people will get fired up. Before

that,

they won’t get fired up.

Well, listen, you already had a rally of 1,500

people in the winter.

You’ll gather a rally. Well, it would be silly to

play fortune-teller like Vanga (a famous Bulgarian mystic). But I

believe that when there is

a rally of 5,000 people in Novosibirsk, they’ll cut the tariff increase

to the permitted 4%, and that’ll be the end of it.

Look, let’s hold it,

let’s do it. And, well, in short, we’re working on this

very, very carefully. We

understand very well how

tariffs are structured. Lyubov Sobol at the

Anti-Corruption Foundation (ACF) worked on this

for many months. In short, we’ll expose everyone,

but you can achieve something

only by bringing people out into the streets. Yes,

Thank you. And quickly: I don’t want to add

a note of pessimism, but all of your

logic is built on the assumption that you

will win the election.

What do you mean?

I mean, you keep saying: "I’ll come in, I’ll change things."

That’s wonderful, I’m not

arguing. But what will you do if you’re

not allowed to run in the election, or if you,

say, don’t win? And the second

question: if everything goes well, how will you

interact with a completely

pro-Putin Federal Assembly?

I’ll start with the second part. A completely

pro-Putin Federal Assembly—we

will dissolve it, because it is not just

completely pro-Putin, it is completely

illegitimate. It was elected with

fraud, it was elected without

allowing many parties to participate, it was elected under

conditions of censorship. I am

a real person from real life. I,

of course, understand that no matter who wins

the election, there will always be in Russia

a substantial number of people who

support, broadly speaking, Putin or

Putin-style politicians. These people

will always have a significant faction, and with these

people it will always be necessary to have some kind of

dialogue. Well, we can see now

the confrontation between Democrats and Republicans

in the United States. We see confrontation in

Ukraine, we see confrontation in

France. In other words, it’s always this kind of

contest over who outvotes whom, who persuades more of the population.

As for what

I will do if—well, all right, tell me,

let me ask a more abstract question. Who

is planning to emigrate in the near

future?

Well,

if they let us out,

who needs us? What’s the point of that

anyway? And

maybe some people do, but most of

you, of us—I guarantee it—are not

I guarantee that. There’s a lot of talk on this

subject, but whether that sounds good or bad,

sad or cheerful: we were born here,

we will grow old here, here we will have

children, here we will have grandchildren, and

then one day we won’t be here at all. And this

is still our country. And I see this

again, forgive the pathos, as, well,

a kind of final battle between good and

neutrality. This is a political process

in which we, people who have

rights, who know and are confident in the justice of our

cause, are fighting those who, well, grabbed

power and who use that power for

personal enrichment. So these elections—

well, I am taking part in them. Whether I win or

lose, I will still remain with you, whether in the

minority or the majority. I don’t

think that all of us are going to change our

political views. We have always existed and

always will. We just need to build up

this “we” in order to win. I am confident in

victory. I wouldn’t be standing here, I don’t

know, climbing onto this stage if I

didn’t believe that it is possible to win, if

if I didn’t believe that we would win. I

just know, I can see that this regime

is doomed. But who actually needs it?

Really, I mean, who needs these dogs on

the plane? No one. Who needs these

Rotenbergs? Who needs this stupid Sibeka?

No one. The truth is

that nobody needs this at all, excuse my language,

not one damn bit. And this government is no longer

capable of doing anything good. It

really is the case that its main enemy is not Trump,

not the Americans, not ISIS, not anything else. Its

main enemy is the population. Right now

the main dynamic in the country is

the struggle between the authorities and the people. In

Novosibirsk, this is most visible. You have

a formally opposition mayor who supports

raising the tariff, your governor supports

raising the tariff. Your city council,

your legislative assembly supports raising the tariff. And

only the damn city of 1.5 million people

is saying: "No, we don’t have the money, we don’t

want to pay." That’s it. Still, I

proceed from the assumption that in a confrontation between 1.5

million people and 25 people who will

get some kind of kickback from this

tariff, sooner or later 1.5 million people

have to win. That’s why I’m confident in

success. Yes,

May I ask a very timely question?

Alexei, you are a professional

advocate, a lawyer, a human rights defender. I want

to emphasize that this is quite an

topical question. Most people, yes,

most of our citizens believe that changes

to the Constitution of the Russian

Federation are necessary. If you were president,

what changes would you make to

the Constitution—perhaps the most important ones,

the main ones?

I’m not one of those people who

really love this Constitution or

treat it like something sacred. You often hear

statements like that. And Putin

likes this line very much: don’t touch the Constitution,

let’s not change the Constitution. But

what good has this Constitution done for us?

This Yeltsin-era Constitution

created in Russia what political scientists call

a super-presidential

republic. The president is not even the head of

the executive branch, but the head of

state. He has immunity, and he

controls everything. Under this Constitution

he has been in power for 17 years. And then under this same

Constitution, the presidential term was extended

to 6 years. Under this same Constitution,

our governors stay in office for 20 years. Under

this same Constitution, city mayors—and

now in our country they are practically nowhere

elected. Do I need such a

Constitution? And do you? Yes, it is

bad; overall, it needs to be changed.

The Constitution should be such that it

100% guarantees the separation

of powers, freedom of the mass

media, and political competition.

So of course it needs to be changed. It

basically needs fundamental change. But

again, back to the question of the Constitution.

We open it up. What article do we have? Thirty-

fifth. No, the thirty-second, excuse me,

sorry,

it says there in black and white:

"The only people who may not participate in elections are people

who are in places

of deprivation of liberty (prison)." And under this same

Constitution, some mustached

Peskov, damn it, sits in the Kremlin and says:

"What was the quote? We are surprised by Navalny’s desire

to take part in the presidential

elections, because yes, it seems

strange to them." And that seems strange to me too. Well,

excuse me, damn it. To them

it seems strange. But to me, to me it does not

seem strange. What’s the point, when this

Constitution means nothing

and guarantees nothing? Of course it

needs to be changed. We need a new

constitutional assembly that

will make the basic law into a

proper basic law

and then comply with it.

Exactly. Follow your own

Constitution. Yes.

No.

Yes.

Oh, I wanted to ask: all right, we

win, we take over the top

of power, but there are, for example,

people like Maksakova, and maybe

the Maksakovs—both of them, right? Maksakov and

Voronenkov, Maksakov and Voro... They, they

are classic weathercocks. They ran away and

immediately changed their position. They started

saying whatever was выгодно to them.

When you come to power, you can’t

possibly lustrate everyone; we won’t

have any politicians left. What are we supposed to

do?

There will be some left.

Well, there’s you—you’ll remain. Right. I

understand the question. Good question. Yes,

what kind of infrastructure will you build so that

with this kind of opportunism, everyone could

join the struggle? Infrastructure or

opportunism—that’s a good one, look,

Look, that’s an excellent question. And indeed,

over 17 years—or really even

longer, going back to the late

Soviet Union—what kind of people

go into power? First and foremost, they are

hypocrites, vile

liars. That is the main trait. And

over the last 10 years, there has been negative

selection. That is, only

completely awful people make it to the top.

And my answer is actually simple.

Well, the top brass is finished; they need to be, so to speak,

finished off for good, of course by legal

means, naturally. But the bulk of the

apparatus

consists of ordinary people who live by

the principle, “when you live with wolves, you howl like a wolf.”

They accept the rules that are

imposed on them. And right now, our civil

servants are, fortunately, very well

funded. Their salaries are very

high in the regions; in many places, people

working in government service are the

most well-off people. That is why we have no

problem attracting new people into public

service. We have the money to hire

these people. And when the federal government,

the main authority, starts sending

the right signals and behaves according to

the rules, then the bulk of the apparatus

will change too. This is not just my

assumption or a slogan; we have seen

this many times: people do change. It

happened in Georgia, it happened in Singapore,

it happened in Hong Kong, it has happened in

many countries. It is happening in Africa now, in

some countries there. In fact,

Russia is already below Africa in terms of corruption,

and in terms of development it is below

many African countries. This

has happened in Latin America too, in Chile.

There was a junta there, some awful

classic, almost caricature-like

corrupt police officers. Now in

Chile the level of corruption is much lower than

in Russia. The same is true in Argentina.

Never.

I already said this today at the

press conference. And in general, an important

point is this:

we will not persuade a university rector, a deputy governor, or

a city mayor to be honest

if he sees that the federal

government is simply carving up billions, so that

it is just

horrific. But if

the federal government functions properly and

is accountable, then people will start

to readjust as well. When there is a free

press and you understand that if you do

something wrong, then the newspapers will

tear you apart and you will be forced

out of office because you

bring nothing but problems, then people

will start to change. A person gets used to

anything. Putin has accustomed these people to

bad things. We will accustom them to good ones.

You’ll set an example.

Yes.

Ah, thank you, Alexei. So, I have

a question about social policy. I have

four nephews and nieces; two of them are already

in school. And, well, as you already

said, a quarter of the country is below the

poverty line. So perhaps it would make sense

to introduce a subject like

financial literacy into the school curriculum.

But they are talking about that now, aren’t they?

Well, first of all, yes, they really are

talking about it. Second, well,

it is hard to say, you see?

If a person earns

17,000 rubles

and is below the poverty line in many

regions, will giving that person a course in

financial literacy make life easier for them?

No. And for their children? Possibly, they will learn

to spend those

resources more rationally.

Well, listen, I do not know how you can rationally

spend it, but I think the issue lies elsewhere.

The problem is something else. In fact, this is

a good question. The problem is the existence

of social mobility.

Because tell me, please,

does anyone now have even a rough idea

of how to become rich in Russia? Well,

not even rich, just comfortably well-off.

There is a top 5% of the most affluent

people in Russia. They are not millionaires.

What?

You need to be Sechin’s son.

Excellent. What other options are there?

Anything non-criminal is definitely out of the question already. So

there really is no such path, if we assume that. Of course,

an equal start is normal. But if you

want to become simply a well-off

person, very well-off, earning, I

do not know, say 300,000 rubles a month.

Then your simplest and most realistic option is

either Gazprom or becoming an official,

and taking bribes.

Neither business nor any other

normal avenues of social mobility are working.

We need to change the economy so that

business develops, small business develops, and in general

everything develops, so that people—your

nephews and nieces, for example—have the opportunity to become

wealthy if they have that desire,

that entrepreneurial drive. Or they should

be able to enter public service and

earn a high salary if they do not

have that desire. And there is a sea of money

in the country. That is exactly the point: there is a sea of money

in the country, but it is concentrated

entirely in the wrong places, not

distributed the way it should be.

That is why, in this respect, our

state currently controls 84% of the

economy.

Small business owners cannot

really operate, because all that is left for you

is to work on government contracts.

And that means going around and slipping someone

bribes, kickbacks, and everything else. In other words,

this system does not work at all. When

it does start working, then

financial literacy courses will be needed too, when people

actually have something to

I worked on this project, worked on it

this project. Well, maybe you won't

share all the secrets right away, but later

you'll tell us, right. And my question is about

the fragmentation of the opposition in society.

We all know that there are many different

political forces, but at the moment they are all

pulling in different directions. How do you

plan to cooperate with PARNAS (a Russian opposition party),

Maltsev, and all these other forces

in order to reach some kind of common ground?

Well, I love them all very much.

And

there are a few things to say. First, so far

we don't see any major disunity. There,

Khodorkovsky has supported me,

Solidarnost supported me at the conference.

Well, I hope that PARNAS

will support me too. But to expect Yabloko

to support me and withdraw

Yavlinsky, I think, would be naive.

You understand that yourselves. So again, we are

people living in the real world. Most of you

here are young, but still

you know the politics of recent years, you

follow it, and you understand perfectly well that

it's not going to happen that everyone simply unites.

The moment everyone unites, the Kremlin will—bang—

create a new party, bring us

the Party of Growth with Boris Titov, and say:

"Look, they didn't unite with you,

we'll somehow persuade Boris Titov,

hypnotize him. And then they'll create some other

party too." So first,

absolute unity is impossible. Second,

we shouldn't strive for it, because

we have fragmentation among these

liberal parties that, overall, do not

control that many votes. We

must overcome our disunity

by reaching out to people. In other words, if we can't

reach an agreement with Yavlinsky, we'll reach one

with his voters. But even more importantly, we need

to appeal to the voters of

the Communists, the LDPR, A Just Russia, and

Putin's voters. That's where

we need to invest our efforts, because

look, I could be here

at the opening of this campaign office, which is where I am, or

I could hold 144 roundtables in

Moscow discussing the problems of

opposition unity. Which path do you think

is more effective? I'd rather

open campaign offices in seventy-seven cities and

work with people than sit there

inside the Garden Ring (central Moscow) with those five

people who've been there, damn it, since 1989.

Literally. Trying to

unite. Alexei, can I ask a cynical

question?

Go ahead, a cynical one. A pessimistic one. Go ahead

with the cynical one. Yes.

What do you think: if you pose

a real threat to the authorities, then why

haven't you yet met the fate of

Nemtsov?

Oh, that's one of my favorite frequently asked

questions. Why haven't you been jailed? Why

haven't you been killed?

Well, I mean,

I don't know.

It's hard for me to say. No one

knows what's going on in their heads.

No one knows what their plans are. I

don't think there are any special plans

there. It's just that there is simply

a moment-to-moment struggle for money, for

holding on to this power. What exactly they've

come up with, what knives they've sharpened—that's

hard to say. I only know what I

am doing. I try to do it as

transparently as possible. I don't get tired of traveling around and

explaining things to people, answering questions,

responding to criticism, answering

pessimistic questions, cynical

questions. That's all I can do, and that's

what I'm doing. But sitting there thinking, damn,

why haven't they killed me yet? That's

basically a waste of time, yes.

If you are elected president, will the Anti-Corruption Foundation (ACF)

continue its

work?

Well, within the Anti-Corruption Foundation (ACF)

there are quite a lot of people who

have proven themselves so well

that I believe they could hold

positions in the state apparatus.

But I see

it as a self-contained institution. And I see the most important

task of state power as ensuring that

it—I, as president—encourages

the emergence of such anti-corruption

foundations that would, among other things,

scrutinize any government. In other words, such

organizations are necessary, and there should be many of them.

What is the Anti-Corruption Foundation (ACF), really?

In fact, it is quite unique, and

it can exist only in Russia,

because, well, somewhere like Germany it

simply wouldn't be needed. In 80% of cases, we do the kind of work

that is done by

journalists, by various

other civic organizations. But we

do all of this because there is simply no one else

to do it. We will free the media,

we will free all NGOs. Therefore,

in this specific form, as the Anti-Corruption Foundation

(ACF), it will probably cease to exist in that form,

but we

will do everything possible to encourage the emergence

of such organizations that scrutinize all

authority, including me. Otherwise

everything loses its meaning. As I already

said, power corrupts every person.

Anyone. Yes. There must always be someone

standing there and keeping watch. Yes.

And the first question: what will you do with the Russian Orthodox Church?

And the second question.

And the second question. What will you do

about the law on believers?

What is the law on believers?

The law on offending believers' feelings. It's awful.

What would I do with the ROC (Russian Orthodox Church)? Nothing needs to be done with the ROC.

Let it exist. The ROC. And

formally, 80% of people in Russia consider

themselves Orthodox Christians. Of course, they don't really

practice Christianity in any real way. They

go to church and so on. They're more like

Soviet-style Orthodox believers. And that's fine. Well,

if that's how it is, then that's how it is. Let the ROC

exist. Let it collect its, I don't know,

dues, taxes, fees, whatever, by all means.

It's just that they should not be given the right

to speak on behalf of the state. It is not

for them to decide who should be jailed

and who should not. And there should not be a situation

where some person

gets upset in church because he doesn't like

a stage production, and therefore we ban

that production. The state is separate from

the church. This debate will always exist.

There will always be believers who will

picket concerts. There will always be

activists who will curse priests

in the harshest terms. That's life. And that's how it

should be.

These are different views on, well, on basic

philosophical questions of existence.

Let it remain that way. The church should not

replace the state.

A law protecting believers' rights is unnecessary.

It's complete nonsense. I am a believer,

actually, but no one—even if all of you

started pointing at me right now

and shouting, "There is no God." Yes,

go ahead, that would not violate my rights

for even a second. My rights cannot be

violated by that. And there is no need for such a law.

For example, here's a specific case

to conclude my answer to this question. The

issue of St. Isaac's Cathedral right now in

St. Petersburg

has people at each other's throats, and so on. On the one hand,

yes, it is a religious building,

a house of prayer. Such buildings

should be transferred to the church. On the other

hand, we understand what is happening in St. Petersburg

(often called Piter). The fight there is not over St. Isaac's itself, but

over the 1 billion rubles it brings in

from the people—from tourists—

who come there. And we understand perfectly well

that the ROC cannot maintain

such a huge religious building. They

couldn't maintain it even before the Revolution.

So let's not engage in nonsense.

If churches want to take over new ones, then yes,

by all means, drive around Novosibirsk

Region. I'm sure there are so many

abandoned churches there that you can just take one and

restore it. So

let's separate these things and do it the way it should be done.

The church is separate from the state. They

will do just fine. Everyone else

will do no less fine. Yes,

I also have a technical question. You touched here

on the issue of emigration, and although

you said something along the lines of

"where you were born is where you belong." Nevertheless,

in the last election, voters

abroad—how do you get a residence permit?

No, no. In the last election, abroad

around 2

million Russian voters were registered,

Really? And turnout there was 4%.

And not every Russian citizen

there registers with the consulate.

For the presidential election, possibly,

especially if this audience is engaged

with—they have forums and so on there—

turnout may be higher.

Is the question being raised of placing observers in

embassies?

In embassies, as a rule, they don't usually

falsify the vote anyway. Look, if

everywhere voted the way embassies do,

PARNAS and Yabloko would win everywhere.

Yabloko.

Well, no, of course there is the embassy

in Belarus—rather, the Russian embassy in Belarus—

and there is the Russian embassy in London.

So, first, we are definitely planning

to collect signatures there, right?

Yes, out of our 300,000, we are entitled

to collect 7,500 signatures from citizens

living abroad. We will collect them. I

went to London and met with the local

local

campaign team.

I mean, I had

a talk there, there were 100 people, and all of them

said they would sign. That's not

a problem, by the way. But relying too heavily

on their turnout, well, you can't really

count on it. In reality, people

have embassies only in certain cities, people

live far away, some have, so to

speak, completely lost touch. Well,

historically turnout there is 4-5%. Even if it

reaches 6%, excuse me, that still won't

be enough to outweigh a large aul (mountain village) in Dagestan

turning out to vote.

A related question: is Navalny's becoming president

linked to the idea that

every citizen of the Russian Federation

will receive the right to a share in the national

wealth, specifically natural-resource rents?

There it is again, an awkward question. This idea

often comes from those who live abroad. Well,

for those who live abroad, it probably

concerns them to a lesser extent, but

thank you very much—there's the leaflet right there.

So, this is

a key point of the program. This is really all

about what our elections and our politics are about.

It is precisely about the fact that

there cannot be such a poor population in

in such a rich country that Russia can and

should live much better. And that is connected

first and foremost with the fair

distribution of resource rents. That is why I

talk about it constantly. Many people

call me a populist for it. Many believe that

it is impossible. But I absolutely believe

that it is possible, that it must be

done. And democracy is the best way

to distribute those rents. And as for

people abroad,

we would do better to raise money from them. They will not

come to vote, but they are citizens

of Russia, they have passports, they

are all used to donating money through

the internet. That is just part of life in

Western society. So we have a lot of

ideas tied to that for now, like, well,

there is a Russian community of 400,000

people living in London.

Let them send, let them send us

one pound a month, and that is already a substantial

amount of money that we would receive.

Yes.

And in addition to the question of why you have not yet

been jailed, are you aware that on the

internet people are building conspiracy

theories about how you are actually

a Putin agent, and as proof they

cite the fact that your rhetoric in many ways

overlaps with his. Back when he was running for

president in the 2000s, so how would you

comment on that?

Well, of course I am aware. I do read

what people write about me, but that is not the

worst thing they write about me. But as for the idea

that I am a Putin agent, a Putin

It is hard, damn it. Why would they treat their own

agent like that? People

who are mired in that kind of

conspiratorial thinking are extremely

hard to convince of anything at all. But

still, well, here is what I can say,

guys, I am not a Putin agent. That is

the first thing. Second,

many of you have had the chance

to observe my work over the course of

years. Those who have not can go onto

the same internet where this kind of thing

is written, and look at what I was doing.

in 2009, in 2005, and even in 2003,

and probably even in 2001 and 2000.

In other words, I cannot prove it by anything other than

my own work.

So I try to prove it precisely

in that way. And that is why I am having

this conversation with you and doing this kind of explanatory

work.

I would add,

we conducted a great many focus groups there

in the autumn, when we were preparing this whole

campaign. We had this

experimental focus group in Nizhny

Novgorod among people who do not use the

internet and have extremely low

incomes. Sitting there were, literally,

cleaners, kindergarten teachers,

that sort of thing, mostly older

women. And we were trying to reach

people who do not vote. So these were

low-income people who do not use the

internet and do not go to elections. The most

traditionally difficult, really difficult

electorate, as it is considered. And we

showed them the candidate, and none of them

knew who Navalny was. We showed them

his biography, described the platform, and they

all said: "What a good platform,

what a good man, we want change so badly,

we are so tired of living in this shit,

in destitution and poverty." He is so

good. If only Putin would come out and say

that he accepts him as one of his own.

So you can tell them that.

I heard it myself through the glass. Yes.

Yes.

I have two questions. First question.

Would you grant amnesty to Maxim Martsinkevich?

Second question.

I think 2017 will be quite a tense year,

because after all

people's political positions will

become sharper, right? Are you ready

to support certain flashpoints in the regions,

yes, fairly acute ones, like Novosibirsk,

including on housing and utilities issues,

by being personally present yourself?

Well, what else would I do? I am here, in

Novosibirsk. If you have a rally on March 18,

and if the organizing committee there, where nothing is

simple, decides that I

can speak there, then of course I will come and

speak. Well, provided we do not have

the opening of a campaign office that day. So, I mean,

of course, yes, as for amnesty for

everyone, and Martsinkevich in particular, but this is not

a question about Martsinkevich, it is a question about Article 282.

There are quite a lot of rather unpleasant people there,

including Martsinkevich and some

other thoroughly unpleasant people, but

nevertheless, for me they are all

political prisoners, because they were

not tried for what perhaps they

should have been tried for; they were not tried because

they are unpleasant people, but were tried simply

for certain political views.

Therefore, everyone imprisoned under Article 282 should, of course,

be released as political prisoners,

and not even merely amnestied,

but because this article should be abolished altogether and

should not exist. Right now, well, if you

have been following this, I am handling many cases in the

European Court of Human Rights. There is simply

a huge wave of appeals under Article 282. And again,

these are the kinds of people involved. A typical one writes:

"I was imprisoned illegally. I

just wrote a post on VKontakte. Well, I

was only criticizing bad Jews. Properly speaking,

I wasn't insulting Jews. I mean, damn,

just because someone writes all sorts of nonsense

or because they're stupid, or because they

hate someone, that doesn't mean

they should be locked up in prison. So,

of course, everyone convicted under Article 282 should be released.

Yes.

Alexei, hello. I'd like to ask

a question. What can you say about

the recent resignation of the head of the

Federal Customs Service, Belyaninov, and

the appointment to his post? Well, as

rumor has it, the former KGB man

Bulavin.

Rumors, sure — they're all former KGB men.

So what can you say about that?

Right, well, as for Belyaninov, we

filmed his house — you've probably seen it — we

posted it. I mean, we were tracking

this guy. We were looking at his

assets and comparing them, as part of our

campaign against illicit enrichment,

his legal income with his property.

Go to my Facebook account,

and you'll see how Zhora Alburov filmed

his lovely house with a drone. That

house is not something a person with his

salary could afford. Besides, the money

that wasn't seized from him there, but

was found during the search, of course,

shows that he was corrupt.

And of course, he wasn't removed for that, because

there was no criminal case, nothing. It was

some kind of internal infighting.

As for the new guy who was

appointed, I don't really even know yet

— we haven't looked into him yet.

You should take him on sometime.

Well, we will. Listen, we have one

problem: there are too many people we could

go after. It's not like we're

searching this system for the

worst corrupt official. It's more like

a queue — we'll get to him eventually,

because there are no others there.

And it's a big structure, it brings in a lot of

money.

I know. Yes. Well,

go ahead and take it on yourselves, feel free. I

can't,

Right? So here's a question. In

Novosibirsk, there are people who

support you, there are people who

support Putin. There are people who

support Zhirinovsky, probably. Well,

there are places like

Novosibirsk and Yekaterinburg, where there are

people you can persuade

to vote for you, and there are people who,

well, are probably hard to win over. But then

there are regions of Russia, mainly in the south,

the Caucasus regions, such as

Chechnya, Ingushetia, Dagestan. And there, everyone

is one hundred percent pro-Putin. They,

they've been like that for 15 to 20 years.

I understand the question. But that's not true. Not the people.

Huge numbers of people write to us

from there. Take Krasnodar, for example.

On the one hand, everything there has been

completely cleaned out. If anyone followed how we

went on that trip to Anapa,

you know what it's like there. I mean, it's total

lawlessness, the Tsapki gang, total trash. But at the

same time, judging by visits to my

blog and video views, Krasnodar is always

near the top. So it's Moscow, St. Petersburg,

Yekaterinburg, Novosibirsk,

something else, and then Krasnodar. So, well,

in Krasnodar, in the Kuban region,

Krasnodar Krai has a population of 5 million people.

It's a huge region, and people there are very

dissatisfied with everything, but what they're angry about is

these Tsapki-type gangs. The level of

lawlessness is such that everyone is afraid

to get involved.

They're more afraid.

They're afraid. Yes, more afraid. Because

remember when we released the film about

Chaika. It was a scandal. Everyone was writing about it,

everywhere. And then some guy in

Kushchyovskaya

decided to screen the film in a movie theater. He went

to arrange it. And we said, "Go for it,

good job," we encouraged him. But then he

said, "Will it be dangerous?" I said,

"Dangerous? Come on. The whole country is

writing about it, everyone's in an uproar. This is actually

the safest possible moment." But he went, and

on the way out he was hit on the head. So

I mean, it really is

total chaos there. In that sense,

Novosibirsk is still a very, very free

city. Cities like Novosibirsk,

Yekaterinburg — compared with what's happening in Chechnya,

we get huge numbers of appeals from there. All the

problems there are intensified

many times over. When

you see Kadyrov's motorcades like that,

with a hundred Porsches driving around, it infuriates you,

or at least annoys you, but in Chechnya there are people

living in utter poverty. And it infuriates

them much more strongly in all these

regions. So in some places,

we probably won't open campaign offices,

because it would simply be dangerous for

the people working there. Like in Grozny.

Will you be in Grozny? We won't be in Grozny,

because, well, we can't

guarantee safety. We have people who

want to do it, but we're not sure we can

guarantee their safety, so

we won't take on that kind of

responsibility. But the real support

there is very strong. And, well, just look at

videos from polling stations in Dagestan.

In practice, only about

14% of the population actually goes to vote. They

officially report turnout at 99%. There

Basically, no one believes in any

elections at all. But the number of people ready

to vote for an alternative is enormous,

very large in every

region. And in Grozny we would get

quite a lot of votes if there were

a chance to count them honestly there.

So we will work with all such regions

because people who are fed up with all this

are everywhere.

Let me add something very briefly,

very briefly. First of all, a ton of people write

to us from Grozny, Makhachkala, and

Nalchik all the time. So there

are people there who are ready both

to sign and to vote. It is very

hard for them to work there. We will help them

do that work. But still, it is possible

to work there. Second.

The idea that it is 100% pro-Putin there is simply

not true. And you do not have to go far

for examples, or even to the Caucasus. Right

next to you we have our own Caucasus, so to

speak, a rather specific one. Here are

some guys who came from Kemerovo,

right?

There they report 90% turnout and 90% for United Russia

year after year, and for 25

years Aman Tuleyev has somehow known how to

draw all that. Does that mean

people there support Putin 100%? No,

it does not. On the contrary, last fall we conducted

a comparative poll, comparing

Novosibirsk Region and Kemerovo Region; they

have the same population. What did that poll

show? In Novosibirsk Region, according to

official election commission data, 40% voted for United Russia. In our

telephone survey asking whom they voted for, 40%

said United Russia. In Kemerovo, 90% was fabricated

for United Russia. In the phone survey, it was exactly

the same, even a little lower. And

turnout was much lower too, because

yes, yes, yes, just like in Novosibirsk.

In fact, turnout was lower than in Novosibirsk.

Because when people know

the election results will be rigged, they simply do not go.

So there are people there, there are

supporters; that is not the problem at all.

The problem is that working there really is,

so to speak, difficult, because it is a tough region.

Accordingly, we therefore have a huge

task in training election observers.

We are starting. And we are selecting coordinators as well,

so once we finish here now,

we will have an interregional meeting,

because Novosibirsk is responsible not

only for Novosibirsk itself, but also helps

neighboring regions. That is how it works. So

the boldest people from Kemerovo, those who still have doubts,

we will train here as observers, send them there,

and see with our own eyes

what kind of

say, there is student, student

Tomsk, where everything

is relatively okay with elections and so on. We have

over there, somewhere, Alyona with brightly colored

hair, a kind of hipster girl, so to speak,

as coordinator. And from Kemerovo we had

four burly forty-year-old men come to us,

so to speak. Yes, we take the specifics

of the region into account, but everywhere there are people who

are ready to work.

Yes, guys, there is a question there. Okay. Okay.

Alexei Anatolyevich, regarding foreign

policy: you have said and written quite a lot about domestic policy

in your blog,

so what is your opinion on

the military presence in Syria, and what would happen,

for example, what would you do with

immigration policy toward the near abroad

(the former Soviet states)?

As for keeping troops in Syria,

here in Novosibirsk, do you see your

roads? Are they in good condition?

No. Do you think the priority for reconstruction should be

Palmyra

or Novosibirsk? Novosibirsk.

And that is my answer. Yes,

of course Russia should be part of

the international coalition fighting ISIS.

No question about that. Should we send

ground troops there and rebuild

Palmyra? There is no question here either. We

should not.

There is no need to do that. The wealthy

Americans, if they want, can carry out

a ground operation there, they can

rebuild Palmyra, they can

spend money there however they like. When in

Russia, when right here in Novosibirsk,

the average salary reaches 95,000 rubles,

then perhaps we can think about whether the time has come

to send some money to

Palmyra. But until that moment, absolutely

not. We join the international

coalition and, from time to time, I do not know,

send a couple of planes there. But when we see

that Admiral Kuznetsov aircraft carrier, which

sailed there and back, and it cost 7

billion rubles, a third of the city budget

of Novosibirsk, simply burned up. Completely

for nothing, and they even lost two aircraft there.

Sorry to interrupt you, all of that is

wonderful, but surely we cannot just dismiss

our influence, Russia's influence now

in the region where we are present.

Who is talking about dismissing it?

And what will happen if we simply withdraw

the troops from there? What are the forecasts? What will follow?

NATO bases there.

Right, yes, if not us, then there will be

NATO bases stationed there. So, there will be no

consequences. Our presence

there now means we are fighting on Assad's side, and from that

we are getting a huge number of

problems, because, to put it very

simply, in Syria there is a war

between Sunnis and Shiites, and in it we are fighting on

on the side of the Shiites, despite the fact that all

Russian Muslims are Sunnis, and

in general, most Muslims in the world are

Sunnis. So no one except the Iranians is

particularly happy to see us. And

Assad is very happy, but the rest of the

Islamic world, of course, is extremely

irritated. It is unclear why Russia is involved there

at all. ISIS in the form

it exists there cannot be defeated

the way they defeated the Taliban, because

these are just ordinary people. During the day, on their

donkeys they haul firewood, and in the evening they

pick up assault rifles. But as long as they

are not threatening Russia with missiles, taking part

directly in a ground operation

is not something we need. Besides, we do not have

the money. So, like most

much richer and

more influential countries in the world—Britain,

France, and so on—we should

take part within an international

coalition. The Americans put up the money, and we

also participate. But for the most part, all these

funds should be invested in

Russia itself, here at home. I see more

problems here. I do not think it is some kind of

nonsense that if we leave

Syria, some ISIS fighter will come running here tomorrow.

And this brings us precisely to the issue of

migration policy. We face far more

problems because we have

a visa-free regime with the countries of

Uzbekistan and Tajikistan—that is,

Central Asia. From there, arriving here, we get

young people from villages—religious

young people from villages. That is the main

source of terrorism and extremism. And these

people simply come here. They do not even need

an international passport. We are waging war somewhere,

while these people are coming here. Besides,

Patrushev, when he was director of the FSB and head of the

National Security Council,

said that from Chechnya alone, there have now

been 3,000 people who left to fight in Syria.

Why did they also go to fight on the side of the

Sunnis against the Shiites? That is the problem. Because

by getting involved in Syria now, we are

simply wasting money, and we are also making

the security situation worse, while saving

Assad. But he is not someone we need. So this is not

something we should be doing, and it is a pointless

waste of money. Overall, the main direction of

foreign policy for

Russia should be to become a leading European

power. On the territory of Europe, we have

a sufficient population and enough

natural resources

to lay claim to that role. That is exactly

what we should be striving for. There was another question

nearby. Yes. Well, officials' mansions no longer

surprise anyone. Everyone knows that Putin's friends

have secured comfortable lives for themselves. And then

once, after reading another ACF report,

the next thing I saw on the Echo

of Moscow website was a story by some woman about

how her child was effectively left to die in a rural

hospital. And the photo of that hospital was

just a little shack

—a collapsing wooden structure. So are you not

planning, or may I suggest,

conducting investigations not

only into palaces, but also into

huts? Perhaps on paper this hospital is

also some kind of

wonderful facility with innovative

equipment, except all the money was stolen by someone

and went into someone's palace,

because this contrast—

a palace, and next to it just a shed—

is more striking than a photograph alone.

What woman on the Echo of

Moscow website? Today I am reading that you have

opened the largest private

clinic in Siberia.

And at the same time I ask everyone: "But what about

ordinary district hospitals?"

Well, it is the same thing. It is a question of the shed

and the palace.

Russia declares itself to be a social

state. Russia guarantees them

free medical care. Russia

allocates a fairly substantial amount of money

for this, for all of it. They are constantly

boasting that in terms of the number of

tomography scanners per capita, we surpass

European countries. And yet, well,

in reality, all the hospitals simply look like

sheds. Exactly those kinds. We conduct quite a lot of

such investigations. They are

really not simple, these

investigations, because you need to

analyze them professionally. Right now we

have one underway—I will not reveal the details,

but there is an ongoing investigation. Still,

for example, when I ran for mayor of

Moscow, we examined the entire Moscow

healthcare modernization program—100 billion

rubles were thrown at it—and we broke it down

in considerable detail. This is an extremely important issue. And

I am counting on you very much.

For example, as for the situation in

Novosibirsk, we need to take specific

hospitals, and we will help with methodological

support in looking at how much money

is allocated to them. And then, yes, we will

do all of this, and once we do, it

will be posted online. Your task will be

to go and tell specific

people, the visitors to that hospital,

that, guys, everything should be much

better. It is just that this regime stole your

money. Yes.

Alexei, are you planning to make your way onto

federal TV?

Just sneak on, obviously.

Only if I, you know, put on a mask, like in the

films with Tom Cruise. Like that, snea

on Kiselyov's programs he does things like that, and

then I, well, I

a presidential campaign assumes that

they won't be able to deny me, at least in part,

participation in debates and so on, but that

of course

isn't much to count on for now; they have, they have

an interesting strategy on the federal

TV channels: if in 2011-2012

they were actively smearing me but still showing me,

now they don't show me at all. Well,

there was that film about how I'm an agent of every

intelligence service, and recently there was some other one too,

there was, yes, that one

someone made it, but overall, on the new

new verdict in the Kirovles case, there wasn't

a single word. That is, they realized that

it's better to stay completely silent so that nobody

knows anything. Because even now

a sufficient number of people, even

pro-Putin types, see that

someone is being smeared on TV and think:

"Well, obviously, if they're going after him, then

he must have done something right." And for now their

strategy is a total boycott, and we will

overcome it however we can. But no,

there's no need to appeal here. Let's

probably start wrapping up, maybe two more

questions. Yes, go ahead, Alexei. And

many of your supporters will

come out and show support, right? And you have

enormous experience; share with them how to behave

during a police roundup and afterward in

in what?

Well, when you're detained, and after that,

how legally

based on our experience working in Novosibirsk

after all, this isn't Chechnya here, not

Dagestan, and not even Moscow. The city

is fairly free. And believe me, I've held quite a few

street actions in Novosibirsk over the past 2 years

in Novosibirsk. Our police here,

well, that was in court. We're talking now

about the street. Our police are, to a

large extent, just like the people

present here: they go to the same

public clinics and live in the same city

and see the same roads. So

it's unlikely that we'll have any serious

problems on the street. At least

we haven't had any so far. Well, in every

regional headquarters there will be a lawyer who

will accompany the campaign, go out

to detentions if they happen,

provide legal assistance, and so

on. The safety of headquarters staff and

volunteers is an important priority for any

campaign. And we will be working on that.

May I ask a related question?

One second, let me finish answering this

question. So, uh, indeed,

Novosibirsk looks like

a completely trouble-free city from this

point of view. But if you're detained,

go calmly and relaxed to the police station,

fill out all the paperwork there, then file in

court, lose there, send it to me, and I'll win

another €10,000 for you at the ECHR (European Court of Human Rights)

for you.

That's exactly what I wanted to ask about. May I ask a question

a question about how to get rich

from this side of it.

Yes, yes, please.

Hello, Alexei. I wanted

to ask how you are going to ensure

the fairness of the election you plan to run in

with all these ballot-stuffing schemes, with

carousel voting, all of it, all of it.

An easy question to end on. How are you

going to ensure fair

elections? Uh

there will be no fair elections, there will be no

free elections, and there will be no fair elections.

That's a fact. But that is precisely why our

campaign now must first of all secure registration,

secure participation. Some fair elections,

right. If a person has to run a

campaign just to win the right to participate. But

overall, the only good thing is this:

there are 194,000 polling stations across the country, and we must,

we must deploy 100,000

observers, real observers.

Because what happens in every

election in Russia now? The Communists,

for example, say: "We deployed 90,000

observers," but you and I know who

worked at elections. Almost all of them. Very

often, especially in rural regions,

what do the Communists do? They hand over

their forms to the local administration, and

the local administration fills their quota

with its own people. So we must

deploy 100,000 genuine, real

observers. And only in this way

can we push for fair elections. That

is, there is no other way here. Yes. May I

for the upcoming presidential election,

are there any media personalities or

people with public

influence who would agree to become your

authorized representative? And perhaps, would it be worth

speaking with my fellow countryman, our

fellow Novosibirsk native who made

the film "Leviathan," Andrey Zvyagintsev?

I thought he was about to say, "The Safronovs."

A question. A second question. You know,

most of my friends and relatives

and acquaintances, colleagues, unfortunately

support Putin and consider you

an agent of the State Department. And this coming Wednesday

about 40 people will gather for my

birthday. I invite you to come and

hold

we'll all come.

And

thank you very much for the invitation, it's very

flattering to me, but then all the

other headquarters would probably

will be disappointed if they come, because

we have 77 campaign offices, and I have to visit

each one. And since you're all standing here, I

really hope that you... Let me

record a video message with your

greeting. You'll show that you

can energize everyone. They really

need only one thing: for someone to come

to them and explain what needs

to be done. 85%

of people, they don't really... well, they like

Putin because television tells them

that they should like Putin. When they see

a real live person who tells them, "You don't

have to love him—love Navalny, or

someone else," they'll, they'll follow that

example. I'm telling you this with complete certainty.

Just a little effort—

we need to invest in this, and everything will

work out. Friends, as I wrap up, probably

in just a second. For your friends,

your opinion is surely much more important

than the opinion of some random guy

from Moscow

from Moscow. Well, obviously.

Actually, actually, that's exactly how it is.

The most important thing you can do is

really just to campaign personally, yourself.

There is no more

powerful form of persuasion. Neither

my videos, nor leaflets, nor the most

brilliant creative work, nor the best slogans,

nor our wonderful signs can

compa... neither Kiselyov nor Solovyov (pro-Kremlin TV hosts), nor Putin's live call-in show

can compare in strength

to the persuasive power of a real live

person who tells others who they should

vote for, who has put up somewhere

a sticker—a sticker on a car, a sticker

on a laptop, or something else. That is the

most important thing. So, my friends, to conclude,

right now my most important task in all

the campaign offices is to convince you to feel

your own strength.

Don't treat this ironically, or yourselves

ironically. Some of you here are, well, older,

some younger. But I'm sure that not

one of you has ever seen a pro-Putin

or pro-government rally where people showed up

for free, in numbers

greater than the crowd gathered here, because

they don't exist. Sure, in Moscow there are about 10 million

people, and supposedly in elections about half

vote for Putin. But when they hold

pro-government rallies and don't pay people to come,

there are 20, 15, 40 people. There's nothing there.

Empty squares. If this government

really had genuine support, it

wouldn't need to bus in employees of

Russian Post and state employees to its

rallies. But they do bus them in. Not one of their

candidates

has any volunteers at all. Zero.

No one works in their campaign offices for free.

No one. And that is the most important thing.

Realize that.

We are a huge force, and we will definitely

win. Thank you so much. I

applaud you.