Today I have a very instructive story for you
about two ducks.
One of these ducks lived in England, and it was a homeless
duck.
It suffered, and it desperately wanted a little house of its own.
And a kind man came along—he was a member of the British
Parliament, Sir Peter Viggers.
He built a little house for the duck, and the duck was terribly happy,
but then MP Viggers decided to include the cost
of that little house—£1,645—in his parliamentary
expenses.
The duck didn't care, but the voters
absolutely hated it.
They asked the parliamentarian: dude, did you really
want to spend £1,600 of taxpayers' money on
buying a little house for a duck?
And he said: well, yes, I did.
After that, the entire British press and the voters spent
several months tearing that MP apart.
Every newspaper ran photos of his house and the infamous
duck house.
Here, for example, is one episode: activists even made
an enlarged copy of that little house and floated it along the Thames
near the Parliament building.
The public was so outraged that it triggered
a mass review of the expenses of other MPs, and that is how
other violations came to light.
As for Peter Viggers himself, he was utterly destroyed,
and he resigned.
He will never again take part in politics,
because he tried to spend taxpayers' money
—not that much, really— on his personal needs.
The other duck lived in Russia, near the town of Plyos on the
Volga River.
It too had no little house, and it too dreamed of one.
And then fortune smiled on it too.
A cheerful fellow appeared in those parts by the name of
Dmitry Medvedev.
He is friendly with animals and loves ducks, so without any
trouble he built a little house for our Russian duck too.
And while he was at it—since he was already building a little house—he also put up
various small additions for himself around it.
An estate of several thousand square meters, a house
with a swimming pool, a ski slope, several guest
houses, helipads, a pier, and all sorts of other
small things.
All of it spread across 80 hectares (about 198 acres).
Most likely, all of this was so the duck wouldn't feel
lonely and bored.
Such a massive construction project, as you can imagine, required
funding, and so Dmitry Medvedev, through a charitable foundation
controlled by his wife, received a bribe of several
tens of billions of rubles, which paid for all of it.
And what happened to Dmitry Medvedev when all this
information was made public?
When we released a video with footage of the estate, when
we proved that the money for it came from gas oligarchs,
that the property was being illegally guarded by the Federal
Protective Service—meaning, when Dmitry Medvedev
and his entire scheme were fully exposed?
Nothing happened.
Well, that is, our video was watched by 3.5 million
people, a couple of the independent newspapers still left in Russia wrote
about it, but in the election Dmitry Medvedev,
albeit with fraud, of course, still won, no
public outrage descended on him, journalists did not
bombard him with questions at press conferences—everything
stayed exactly as it was.
And the moral of this story is: the ducks are the same, but people's attitude
toward the problem of corrupt duck houses is different.
And only when people get angry, make a fuss,
demand a fight against corruption, and vote against corrupt officials
in elections, does anything change.
But if corrupt officials are not pressured relentlessly, they will continue
to steal.
Why would Medvedev refuse to keep accepting gifts worth billions
if society is effectively giving him permission to do so?
That is why every day we must remember these facts
of corruption, remind others about them, and every time
we hear "Medvedev" or "United Russia"—automatically
say, "Ah, that's the one with the duck house?
He belongs in the dock."
When all citizens of Russia say that—then it
will happen.
Subscribe to our channel— this is where the truth is told.