Husky under arrest, a subject of Her Majesty, and the #PutinIsAThief flash mob

[music]

Hello everyone. It's 8:00 p.m. in Moscow, which means

that if today is Thursday—and today is Thursday—then

we are live with the program *Russia of the Future*. In

the studio, it's me, Alexei Navalny, or the "coffee

liberal," as the Federal News Agency called me,

Prigozhin's news agency run by the restaurateur

—yes, the very same "Putin's chef". I'm glad that

Putin's chef continues to keep an eye on my

work. We'll keep going and do everything we can so

that people like him stay worried about

what exactly we're doing. Please write to me

on Twitter with your question and the

hashtag #RussiaOfTheFuture, and I will

try to answer those questions as we go

through the program.

So, here's the situation. The situation is as follows:

someone comes to another city

to perform, and the police and the authorities of that city

are unhappy. They put pressure on

the venues, all the venues refuse, and as a

result, the person whom people want

to hear speak or perform—this alleged

disturber of the public peace—well, they

gather somewhere, and the person still

comes out to perform, and then the police

detain him. What is this? Well, by now

the image, the spoiler, has already appeared—but no,

it's the wrong one. You'll tell me: well,

Alexei, obviously you're describing

your standard, typical trip to a

regional city: the venues

turn you down, you go out into the street,

stand up to the police—but no,

no, no, we're not talking about politics right now.

We're not talking about Alexei Navalny. We're

talking about rap. You may be surprised, my friends,

but we're talking about rap. We're talking about rapper

Husky, who at this very moment

is in an almost identical situation

to the one I so often find myself in. It's now 8:00

p.m., then 9:00 p.m., and at 11:00 p.m.

a judge will come out and say whether

this rapper, Husky, should spend the next 15

days in a cell, or whether

he will be released. They won't let him hold concerts,

because apparently

some deputies got upset and angry about rapper Husky,

some lawmakers who wrote letters everywhere.

If a deputy from United Russia (the ruling party) writes letters,

then the police have to

do something too. So when he arrived in

Krasnodar, our wonderful Kuban region,

where no laws seem to exist at all, all

the clubs first refused him. In Volgograd

he was also refused permission to perform; the shows were

canceled. When people came to the concert,

he came out to them, and someone said, well,

here, climb onto my car, and from there

—there were about 40 people gathered—you've got to do something.

So he came out and climbed onto the car, and there,

naturally, it was also a hundred-percent copy of

what happens when I travel to southern Russia:

some Cossacks (state-aligned paramilitary/traditionalist groups), some people

calling themselves Cossacks, some kind of

vigilantes—basically some strange

people who can grab anyone they want,

and nothing will happen to them. They

dragged him off the car.

They detained him. As I understand it, there are now

three administrative cases against him, and one is for

resisting the police—Article 19.3,

my favorite one; I've done time under it many times. And then

there's also refusal to undergo

a medical examination,

meaning they assume he was either drunk or

on drugs. And again, Article 20.2.2:

the unlawful organization of a mass

gathering of citizens in public places.

That's exactly the article under which I served my last

20-day and 30-day jail terms. And probably many people

think that right now I want

to gloat over rapper Husky,

because, let's be honest, the man has

views that are, well, not especially democratic,

and at one point

he supported that kind of

Putin-style aggressive policy; in particular,

he went to Donbas (the war-torn region in eastern Ukraine). He even recorded

a song with Motorola, or perhaps to lyrics by

Motorola

—that field commander from

Donbas—and so

he spoke up for all that quite actively, and

quite aggressively attacked those

who were against Motorola. In particular,

two years ago, in an interview with

*The Village*, he said: some bastards on

Patriarch's Ponds (a fashionable central Moscow neighborhood) think they have the right

to speak about him—that is, about Motorola—

negatively. Maybe, of course, they do

have that right, since we're all free

people, but I would gladly take that right away from them

once and for all.

That's what rapper Husky said two years ago.

And now he has found himself in a situation

where some unclear, unaccountable people think

that they too can, just like that, once and

for all, take away from him

the right to perform, to speak at all, to do

anything. But I absolutely do not want

to gloat in this situation. I can

say that I am, of course, unquestionably in this

situation on his side. In fact,

it's not even just his side—it's the side

of all normal people. He says

some things—strange things, good or

bad things; he says good things too, by the way.

For example, Maria Motuznaya from Altai—you

know, the young woman who became widely

known because criminal charges were brought against her

over posts on

VKontakte. He supported her during

that case. But in any event, this is simply a lesson

to everyone: we must stand up for freedom

always, regardless of what

rapper Husky says. And if rapper Husky

even wants to climb onto a car there in order to

to shout there, "Putin is great, we're for Putin"

someone is messing around with this machine, the machine has become

dragging him around means he is right, because he

has every right to perform with

concerts, he has every right to make

his own statements, he has every right

to release his music videos and everything else. I

really hope that after all this

mess, he gets out

and honestly, I'll say that two years ago I was wrong

when I said that some

people from Patriarch's Ponds (a well-known central Moscow neighborhood) — well, he meant that

we are supposedly serious people, while those are some kind of

hipsters and "liberasts" (a derogatory slang term for liberals) hanging around

at Patriarch's Ponds, so he needs to be shut up

because now they want, they

they want to shut everyone up altogether

absolutely everyone, and now rapper Husky

specifically — deputy Elena Drapeko has actually

said something just wonderful. Here's the quote:

"Before opening his mouth, a rapper should

think about what he is calling for, and what

will happen." So you see, here

in fact, Husky's quotes from

two years ago and those of the deputy

of the State Duma, Drapeko, right

now, are actually quite similar. And we must understand very clearly

that this government consists of people

who basically want to ban everything

or rather, it's not just that they want to ban things — in the course of

their work, they simply cannot

stop banning everything. That is their

job. They are our bosses

over us, so they sit there, they monitor

like some kind of evil teacher, and the task

of that evil teacher is simply to make sure these

children sit still, and when he notices

someone moving, he needs to take a ruler

and walk over — whack, on the head. And it doesn't matter whether you're

rapper Husky, or wearing a Motorola A1000 with rhinestones

at Patriarch's Ponds, or whoever else you are. And just

today, another deputy, Vitaly

Milonov, said that there should be a

comprehensive review of the activities of

rapper Eldzhey. And then, quote:

"A bomber jacket, a thick knitted cap,

damn, that's again a dangerous thing — a thick

knitted cap and unusual jeans,

a complete absence of pupils — the overall

picture undoubtedly looks threatening."

Do you understand? A State Duma deputy, with a salary of

450,000 rubles (about 4,900 USD) a month, looked us all over and said:

"I don't like your thick knitted

cap, and in general those unusual

jeans — all of it looks threatening,

so take off your jeans and your thick

knitted cap, rapper." They simply cannot

help banning things. They have nothing else to do in life

— these deputies. To them, we are not

people; we're a flock of sheep, or a herd,

a group of children

children who need to be constantly

watched, and constantly restricted in something

and pushed, forced to move

somewhere

They will do nothing else. I

have said this many times on my

program, and I'll repeat it again:

for the entire remainder of Putin's term, however

long he stays there — one year or ten years, that

already depends on us — but for most of that time

it will be about them

constantly

restricting us in one way or another and looking for

some kind of problem with your thick knitted

cap, or with some unusual

jeans, or with your pupils — something will always be

wrong. And it doesn't matter if someone thinks

that certain cultural figures — well,

they spoke out in support of Putin, or

went to the DPR (self-proclaimed Donetsk People's Republic), or something else — so they'll be

left alone. No, they won't be left alone

ever. And here's a wonderful example:

Yegor Kreed, whose producer is

the singer Timati — and it would be hard to find anyone in show business

more loyal

than that kind of representative of show business

He's already fawned over Putin and

Kadyrov, kissed up to all of them, loves them so much,

and still Yegor Kreed is not allowed

to perform in Makhachkala. Why? Because apparently it needs to be

banned. And then they said, well somehow

he has unusual jeans — there's no place

in Makhachkala for people in unusual jeans

and in general there are some people living there in

Dagestan who wanted to go to a nightclub

and

well, listen to calm, harmless Yegor Kreed — what

is so terrible about that?

But no, you can't, you're not allowed

We've decided for you — you must not do that

But of course, the argument

against Husky will be something like this. And

I'm sure that tomorrow

some Kremlin media outlet

or one of those federal news programs

will immediately write that Navalny

spoke on his program and once again, apparently,

defended drug addicts and drug dealers, because

rapper Husky supposedly promotes

drugs, and Navalny is defending rapper

Husky

Well, here's what needs to be said

Let's actually watch 18

seconds

of the banned video by rapper Husky, which

is called "Today's Business" on YouTube, and

actually — believe it or not —

from Husky's banned clip, 18 seconds, as I understand it,

which were the main

reason why it was banned

This is, after all, a program about banned

things. Let's watch. Do I like

what is shown there? Well, how should I put it — it's

life. I certainly don't like it when

people take drugs. I am against

people taking drugs. Well, that's

exactly what the song is about — it's about poor people

people who use drugs

because they live in poverty, they feel bad, and

everything is terrible overall. The state's task in

the area of drug policy is to make sure that

as few people as possible

use drugs, and that this way

fewer teenagers

would use drugs, because

drug addiction is now a problem

of the poor, mainly. A stereotype held by many

in much of society, people who are far removed from

this problem, is that, well, drugs

are somehow something consumed by the rich

and that it's people in nightclubs

snorting cocaine off each other and whatever else

with gold credit cards and all that

lines and so on. No, it's poor young people

who are using exactly this kind of garbage that

they bought for 500 rubles (about $5–6)

they stuff into a cigarette and then jump around on

those so-called salts or whatever and then out the window

it's horrible. So, deputies and

Deputy Drapeko and Deputy Milonov, they

should study the experience of a huge number of countries

where drug addiction arrived much

earlier than in Russia, earlier than in the USSR (the former Soviet Union), and

try to apply some measures

to fight drugs. There are

some softer methods, and if what's needed there is

tough anti-drug policy

fine, but then support Yevgeny

Roizman and his anti-drug policy

but you won't support him; more than that, you

hound him

then why did you find in the video by

rapper Husky? Besides, let's

be honest: if we ban

rappers' music videos about drugs, rapper

— well, not only them, not just about

drugs do they sing — but if we ban

rappers' music videos about drugs, then we

must ban all feature

films

feature films, especially from

recent cinema. Well,

let's remember *The Irony of Fate* (a classic Soviet New Year's film)

I mean, the main mega-hit that every

New Year they show us — we know this

film by heart — and it's about how people

got absolutely plastered, to an inhuman degree

and got lost somewhere within the Soviet

Union

*Peculiarities of the National Hunt*

*Shirley Myrli*

these are all films where, with a kind of

sympathy, people are shown as just

again, excuse the expression,

getting pig-drunk, and in

that pig-drunk state they did

all sorts of funny things

all right, but if it were the same thing except

they had gotten high instead, how would that

be different? From that point of view, vodka

is the same kind of drug — any addiction specialist will

tell you it's exactly the same kind of drug. But nevertheless

one thing is treated as some kind of

national peculiarity

or fishing trip — that's our Russian character

everyone got drunk and is lying on the ground, but

if someone poured himself something there, then for that you need to

ban the video, jail people. Both

are negative phenomena

and both should be fought

the arrest of rapper Husky will not in the slightest

help the fight against drug addiction

or the spread of drugs among

teenagers, first and foremost

on the contrary, first of all it will make all this even

more popular. Besides, once again it

shows us that there is basically no

rule of law in the Russian Federation, and even more so

in Kuban, in Krasnodar Krai (a region in southern Russia), here

just, by the way, in Krasnodar

Krai, I wasn't even able to

perform in Krasnodar because not

a single venue gave us

the opportunity to perform. I never

made it there during the presidential campaign

there is no law there at all — it is simply absent

well, there isn't much in Moscow either, but in Moscow there is

at least some semblance of something, whereas there everything is simply

replaced by these kinds of people

who call themselves Cossacks (paramilitary traditionalist groups), who

of course have never even seen a horse up close

and have nothing whatsoever to do with rural

life or agriculture — just some kind of

thugs and private security guys simply sitting on

the budget

some of these judges, and again Prosecutor

Chaika, the Tsapki gang — that's our whole Kuban

our Krasnodar. And when these people

are now trying to show all of us

that they are, supposedly, on the

side of legality — well, frankly, there is

no trust whatsoever. Well, I spent a full 16 or 17

minutes talking about rap — that's probably my

new record, and our program

will soon turn into a rap bulletin. So, questions

Alien John asks me: what can you

say about the nationalization of the

Central Bank of the Russian Federation? Right now

it belongs to the state, that is, it

formally is not state property

it is independent, but of course it is now

part of

the Russian Federation, part of the state

property of the Russian Federation. What other

questions came in?

while they're looking for questions, I'll move on to

the next topic. Our next topic is

that Putin has decided to hand over the Kuril Islands

and all of this is happening in some kind of

very strange way, because he

seems to be planning something and has made some

kind of

outrageous statement, and that's that. And it's interesting to me

to see that even these people have fallen into agitation

these representatives of the so-called

from the patriotic internet, but now all

those who usually go to bat for Putin, for

imperial policy, are now running around the

internet and shouting in horror, "Oh my God,

oh my God,

our beloved Putin is trying to give away the Kurils (the Kuril Islands), and

what is he doing—or is he not trying to? I wonder if there

is the same kind of behind-the-scenes maneuvering going on there.

And as for those propagandists who

are trying to feel out the line—how are they supposed

to explain to us now

that Putin is ready to hand over two of the Kuril

Islands, that this is somehow a good idea, that it is

the fulfillment of the international treaty of 1956,

and now Peskov has already said—first

he confirmed it, then denied it, and in the end

said—not in the end, the discussion is still

ongoing—he said there would be some kind of

compromise that would satisfy everyone. Let's

watch, 41 seconds.

Over these past days, over these days, we have all

already seen a very large number of

various political analyses

and speculations claiming that supposedly some kind of

backroom bureaucratic deal on transferring the islands

and so on has already been made. That is not the case. What will the

sovereignty be, how will they

be used,

what kinds of activity will

take place there, and so on—there are whole

myriads of questions that will need

to be answered. A compromise will undoubtedly

be required; that much can already

be said now. But it will be a compromise that will not

run counter to, or come into conflict with,

the national interests of either

side.

Well, overall it's unclear what

is really happening here, but generally speaking

it's obvious that these people are up to something,

and they are doing it in exactly the same way

as when they already made fairly major

territorial concessions to China, remember?

The islands on the Amur River were handed over,

despite the fact that there was an absolutely

unified opinion among citizens inside

the Russian Federation that this should not

be done. There had been fighting there, people had died there,

and nevertheless, in that same hush-hush mode,

they quietly worked something out, made some kind of deal,

gave away the islands, and told stories about how

beneficial it was for Russia,

what great investments would come, what

wonderful bridges we would build from one

bank of the Amur to the other.

Well, I was in Khabarovsk, and there's nothing there,

nothing has been built, and nobody got any

benefit from it. Here they clearly

want to do the same thing. By the way,

here's one domestic Russian example, also

very telling so far: Ingushetia.

Well, the people in charge there worked something

out among themselves, in some kind of back

room, chatted things over,

passed some money around, and then

presented everyone else with a fait accompli: here,

we exchanged

one territory for another, and people are running around

protesting. Putin, as far as we can

understand—and I think this would be the correct

interpretation—because in fact he

is in a state of foreign-policy

isolation. Of course, he can talk to

Venezuela and, say, some other countries,

or with countries in the Middle East, but overall, for

normal, developed, wealthy countries, he is

some kind of strange,

dangerous little guy no one can have

any dealings with. And it is very important for him

to break out of that and make some kind of

asymmetric move so that everyone would

love him again, so that at least one

country would lift sanctions,

start inviting him, and conduct

dialogue with him.

Putin wants to become a player again in

some part of the world, because, well, essentially

to put it plainly,

this whole supposed return of Russia to the

political stage exists only

on Russian television, but

we cannot really do anything else of that kind.

We just can't.

And as I understand it, he is trying

to strike a deal with the Japanese and actually

give them either two islands or four

islands, somehow in installments,

possibly in exchange for money,

possibly

in exchange for recognition of Crimea's status (i.e., Russian control over Crimea),

but one way or another he would like

to do it in the same way he handed over

the islands to China.

That is, they are not going to ask you and me,

but then again, who are we that they should ask us?

They don't even ask us about things far less important,

about what jeans to wear or what knitted

caps to put on—so why would they discuss the islands of the

Kuril chain with us?

Moreover, the Kremlin understands perfectly well that

public opinion is absolutely against it.

So that means public opinion simply

must not learn anything. It has to be

some kind of arrangement under

which they will tell us how

great and beneficial this is for us, how we somehow came out ahead,

how Putin outplayed everyone again, they will tell us,

because he fulfilled Khrushchev's

1956 agreement, and we will learn nothing more.

In that sense, I am reminded

of a great story that was told to me by

Boris Nemtsov—one of his favorite

stories.

It's described in his book, but he told it to me

personally, and in such vivid

detail, that it really shows, well,

Russian politics and the problem of the

Kuril Islands.

Yeltsin was once together with the prime minister

of Japan.

Nemtsov had come along on the visit, I think it was

Vladivostok. Anyway, they were out somewhere on a

boat, and Yeltsin was there,

the Japanese prime minister was there too, I won't

lie, I don't remember which one.

Nemtsov was there, along with some

member of the Japanese government, and the interpreters.

And the son of a bitch was drunk, I mean,

back to Yeltsin's alcoholism again: he got drunk and,

wanting to do

something nice for the Japanese—he was that kind of person,

impulsive—and at some point

he says to the Japanese prime minister, basically,

"Come on, bring the papers, I'll give you the islands." He was

a generous soul—what were a few islands to him?

"Take them all, I'll sign." Nemtsov

said that at that

moment he realized that we were

completely screwed—that this was the end.

If people found out about it,

they would tear us apart, the government would fall, and we'd never

get a single vote again. But

those were still times when they did, after all,

care about public opinion to some extent.

They thought: people will be unhappy, we can't

do this because people will

be upset. And Nemtsov said that at

that moment he did the one simple, only

possible thing. He understood that he had to

do something to prevent this

disaster—to snap Yeltsin out of it,

because drunk, he had simply decided

in a good mood to give everything away. He might have

gone on to hand over Sakhalin too. And he said,

"Right there in front of the Japanese, I dropped to my

knees before Yeltsin and said, 'Boris

Nikolayevich,

have mercy, this cannot be done,' and

still on my knees, 'I beg you,

stop talking this nonsense in front of the Japanese.' I mean,

for the Japanese, any kind of

emotional display or anything

outside protocol is a loss of face.

And at that level too—the president. Nemtsov

said that

the Japanese were just staring, genuinely

unable to understand what was happening. Yeltsin was stunned too.

"Naturally, I felt like

a complete idiot, but I understood that this was

the only thing that could be done at that moment

to keep Russia from

losing the four islands of the Kuril chain

simply because of stupidity, drunkenness, and

so that the public wouldn't just throw this

government out the very next day." And so

he did it. And now notice

how different the situation is. It's not that

I'm singing the praises of the 1990s, but I am definitely praising

a system in which the government

depends on the public mood, because

now nobody is going to fall to their

knees. If Putin wants to—well, those islands don't belong to you,

do they? They belong to Putin, apparently.

Everyone knows Putin won

the Great Patriotic War (the Soviet term for World War II on the Eastern Front), after all.

He bombed Berlin, he organized

the defense of Moscow, and he defeated Japan too, and all of it

belongs to Putin—so he can give away

whatever he wants.

And of course, if he gave away two islands, fine,

who would accuse him of anything?

And that's considered normal. Of course, we all need to

watch this situation and respond to

it so as not to let these

people make decisions like that. There should

be talks of some kind,

talks with Japan, but they should be conducted on

the understanding that these will be endless talks that

will never lead to anything,

because

this territorial conflict

cannot be resolved. Public opinion in

Japan unequivocally demands all four

islands.

Public opinion in Russia—roughly

speaking, the Russian people—says these islands

must not be given away. So that means

the government, carrying out the will of the Russian

people, should not give up anything. At the very

least, it definitely should not

be engaging in strange negotiations

and all sorts of unclear maneuvering, because

especially in a situation where Russia is

fairly weak economically—let's

be honest, extremely weak

economically. Okay, say we gave away two islands—

then tomorrow, of course, they'll say: hand over

the other two as well.

Then some political party in

Finland will say, well then, let's talk about Karelia

too—it was taken away as well, after all,

it used to be their territory.

An aggressive war was waged, and Karelia was

taken.

So what, are we supposed to start negotiations too

over returning every border change

that took place in the 20th and 21st centuries? Those are

the result of political decisions and

political events, wars—in other words,

some kind of grand global

upheavals. And these borders, in many ways,

from every side, were drawn somewhat arbitrarily.

Not perfectly, not fairly—there is always

someone unhappy with how the borders were drawn.

Therefore, the only possible path is not

to "solve" these problems, but rather the only possible

way forward is to move on and say:

we consider the current borders

inviolable, and we will never discuss

this again. Sure, for a moment it may seem

the Japanese are unhappy, upset, and

concerned, and every Japanese

government faces enormous pressure from

its own population on this issue. But we

have our own population and our own pressure too,

and we must hold to the position that

There is a border; it has been drawn, and we are not revising it.

But apparently, of course,

the Kremlin thinks otherwise and treats these

islands as its own personal property.

All right, let's continue. Ravshan Valiullin asks:

Ask me about the travel ban—I’ll explain now.

Inferno Vertela asks me:

Will you resume live broadcasts on Instagram?

I want to resume them, but somehow it just isn’t

working out. To be honest, I still

haven’t really figured out whether people actually watch live

broadcasts on Instagram. I mean, they do watch—there are

several tens of thousands of viewers there,

but it’s still kind of a strange format for

Instagram, so I can’t really tell

whether people need them or not.

So, Viktor asks a good question.

It’s a question that’s been bothering both me and Viktor.

Lately, honestly, if there is any

example of a country that is developing while

its institutions are degrading,

I can’t think of one, no matter how hard I try.

The courts, culture, the economy, education—everything

is either degrading or not. But, Viktor, the areas

you mentioned—well, yes, they are

degrading, because they simply cannot help but

degrade when an entire

sphere, indeed the whole state, is degrading.

And yet, look—the internet in

Russia is excellent. I’ve just come back from

Strasbourg, and Russia has great internet: fast and cheap.

You hardly find internet like Russia’s anywhere else in the world.

Maybe there are a few places, but

in most countries—even in California, in the U.S.—

internet is more expensive and worse than in Russia.

Mobile service in Russia is cheap.

Internet companies are developing; we have

a national search engine, Yandex,

which the state allows to exist. So yes, of course, there are

some sectors of the economy, some areas of life,

that are developing. But mostly this

happens where the state cannot

influence them, or where something happens

despite the state.

Life goes on: 150 million people live

in this territory, despite the fact that

deputy Milonov (a Russian conservative politician) looks at them and says

something absurd about their specific jeans or whatever.

But people keep doing things, they somehow

keep developing; they don’t just consume.

They use mobile phones, so

sales grow. In other words, life

still goes on—there is always life.

So some things do improve. But if it weren’t for

these idiots in the government,

who are just this oppressive superstructure,

everything would be developing and improving

much more. Now, about the travel ban—I’ll explain.

It was a very strange situation. Don’t ask

what that was. “Alexei, when they didn’t let you

leave the country...” So, I was supposed

to go to the announcement of the most

important ruling concerning me in the

European Court. It was a ruling recognizing

the political motive behind

all those various arrests of mine. So I was supposed

to go, and at the border they told me,

“You are not allowed to leave.” A strange situation in which

the border guards were standing there

glancing at each other—they had clearly been called

and told not to let me out. They didn’t know what

to say. They brought some strange

piece of paper, and it said that

I had been banned from leaving.

But they gave no exact reason. I know that I can have

problems with leaving the country,

so we always monitor the database for things like

debts or something else—some fine

might get attached and they won’t let me out. But there was nothing.

It turned out they had invented some kind of

fine for me in the Kirovles case.

And in fact, they had drawn up the documents

retroactively.

Fortunately, Yevgeny Chichvarkin had long ago

transferred money several months earlier

to cover just such a fine.

He transferred that money to my lawyer; he

was ready to pay that fine for me, for which

many thanks once again. So we passed on the

money, meaning we could pay it instantly.

We paid it, and the Russian authorities immediately

found themselves in a ridiculous situation, because

we could see that some people had said,

“Don’t let him out.”

And then other people started saying,

“You idiots, by not letting him out you’ve created

a scandal out of nowhere. Let him go.”

It would be one thing if he were just traveling with his family

to an exhibition. In fact, two weeks earlier

I had gone to an exhibition with my family, and they

let me out. But this time, don’t let him go to court?

How would that look in court? A ruling is about to

be issued on the political

motivation behind the persecution, and you won’t let him go to that

court? Idiots. In other words,

some idiots

—let’s say, the less idiotic ones—scolded the more

idiotic ones, and apparently that’s why I was

allowed to leave. I don’t have an answer to

that question. Everyone at the court was asking me,

like, “What on earth was that?” And everyone here

is asking too. I simply don’t know. I mean,

it was just sheer idiocy,

the stupidity of some people. But I don’t know—maybe

someone high up called the border service and said, “Don’t

let him out.”

And then, when all of this blew up, maybe

Putin said, “What are you doing?

Are you stupid? Why are you meddling in something that’s not your business?” I don’t

know. Maybe it wasn’t anyone important at all; maybe it was

some completely ordinary Vasya or Petrov-type

officials.

At a lower level. But I still

doubt that, because it couldn’t have happened

at that level for instructions to come so quickly

not to let me out, and then for them to be

canceled so quickly.

The Federal Penitentiary Service.

Even the bailiff service issued

a special press release saying

that yes, yes, yes, we had cleared him to travel.

It was a strange situation, but as for

the substance of the matter,

it really was a major victory.

Look, over the course of several

years I was detained several times,

arrested and jailed, or simply

detained, and in the European Court

I won several of those cases, but the

European Court

said that it recognized that my rights had been violated,

the right to liberty had been violated, but it would not

recognize, for its own reasons, that this had

a political motive behind it.

That political motive was completely

obvious to me, so I appealed to

the Grand Chamber, and the Russian Federation, in

turn, said: actually, we had every right

to arrest and detain him, so we also

filed an appeal, and we all submitted

appeals, so the case ended up before the Grand Chamber.

It’s a very solemn, very serious

thing. I went there and spoke, and as you can see,

I’m congratulating my lawyers.

We really did win after all, and when the

judgment was announced, honestly, all the lawyers

we had spoken to told us,

“Get ready: overall, you’ll

win. These arrests will still

be recognized as unlawful, but you won’t

get that Article 18 finding,”

meaning recognition of a political motive. Because the most important

thing for me was for the political motive

to be legally established, because

the court does not like doing that, and the court

doesn’t want to pick a fight with Russia. It looks

super scandalous.

It breaks with the court’s practice and

affects its future

case law, so they’ll come up with some

formula where you sort of

win, but the political motive won’t be

recognized.” And honestly, after

talking to the lawyers, I went there thinking,

“Why the hell did I even drag myself here?

There’s all this attention, they didn’t

let me out, and now yes, we’ll win, but

we’ll miss out on Article 18.”

And I’ll have to come out here and explain that

it doesn’t matter, that the whole

point isn’t in that article—I’d be putting on a brave face

in a bad situation. But

what happened was a truly major victory. The body

of evidence we presented

to the court was such that they simply could not fail

to recognize the political motive, because

my lawyers really did an excellent job.

My lawyers submitted all the documents.

In some of the cases—I won’t

bore you with the details—but there

the sequence of events was such that it was

impossible not to recognize it, and the court did

just that: it found a violation of Article 18. The position of the Russian

judge is very interesting,

the Russian judge at the European Court, because in

the first instance, when the political motive

was not recognized, the Russian judge, whose surname was

Dedov, wrote a separate opinion. I even posted

it on my blog and said, “My God, Russian

judges can write amazing separate opinions.” And in it

he wrote outright that of course there was

a political motive and that we had to recognize

that political motive—it was very important.

In other words, the judge knew the motive would not

be recognized, and that’s why he wrote that it needed

to be recognized. But this time he knew that it

would be recognized by the majority of judges, and he then wrote

a separate opinion saying he was categorically against it,

that this could not be done. Interesting, isn’t it—

he changed his mind so quickly and wrote a separate

opinion. But in any case, it was 14

votes to 3—we won. Judges voted

for me who, based on the usual alignment,

would never, in situations like this,

vote in our

favor. For example, the judge from Armenia

voted in favor.

And in that sense, this is a major victory not

just for me, and not even primarily for me, but for all the people

who are detained. That’s really great.

Onkrut asks what I think

about the proposal to refuse

imported medicines and

equipment. I’ll say more about that, but

in a word: it’s idiotic, obviously.

Andrei asks whether working in banks

is becoming a threat to employees’ lives.

I’m not sure why working in banks—well,

write to me in more detail, I don’t understand.

But for now, while you write in more

detail, let me talk about our dear Seryozhka

Brilyov. Today we released an

investigation.

You know that those who follow our

videos know we have a particular interest in Russian propagandists.

They are the most disgusting,

vile crooks, but to me, really,

people like Zolotov or, I don’t know, Shuvalov, or others like them

are no more repulsive than someone like

Solovyov, Kiselyov, or Brilyov, because

it is precisely these propagandists, on

their constant lies, that Putin’s

regime stands. These are people who lie

to millions and brainwash millions. This

works not only in Russia—it works

everywhere. Look at these absurd

strange regimes—you had Mugabe in

Zimbabwe sitting in power for 20 years because

he also had television and newspapers

telling everyone what a wonderful

Robert Mugabe he was. He was a completely mad

old man who managed to create

22,000 percent inflation there, and we have

the same kind of disgusting liars. We keep an eye

on them, and we’ve ended up with a kind of mini-

series. We made one episode about the Paris

Gabrelyanov’s apartment at LifeNews, we

talked about Solovyov and

his villa on Lake Como, and now Sergey

Brilyov is a case that, from my

point of view, is absolutely astonishing—not because

we found not only an apartment there for

a million dollars in London

but also because this man is a subject

of the United Kingdom. People confuse citizenship and

what it means to be a citizen of the United Kingdom

or a subject of a country. So if

Britain is a monarchy, then under a monarch you are formally

a citizen in Russia, but in Britain you are

a subject. Therefore,

Sergey Brilyov is a British subject.

Let’s

take one minute and 30 seconds—a brief summary of

our video for those who haven’t watched

it yet. Our mini-series *Propagandists* continues.

A legend of Russian political

journalism, the deputy general director of the VGTRK holding company,

Sergey Brilyov. We type the surname

Brilyov into the public database of British

legal entities, and there is only one

match.

A London company belonging to a certain Irina Brilyova

—that is Sergey Brilyov’s wife. We find the exact

Brilyovs’ apartment in London

simply by going through all the apartments in the building

managed by the company in which she has a stake.

Here is the building. A nice area,

a lovely, affluent part of West London with

the Thames, parks, and not far from

Heathrow Airport. And here is the property record for the apartment.

Owner: Irina Alexandrovna Brilyova.

Purchase date: February 22, 2016,

on the eve of Defender of the Fatherland Day (a Russian public holiday on February 23).

Price: £700,000. These unremarkable

books are a source of priceless

information for us—they are the lists of those who have the right

to vote in UK elections.

In other words, subjects of the United

Kingdom. We open the relevant page and

see that back in 2001, one Sergey

Brilyov

and Irina Konstantinova—that is Brilyov’s wife’s maiden name—

his wife’s maiden name,

were registered as voters in the district of

Notting Hill.

Here’s what I suggest we think about, because

citizenship—your relationship to a country—

is defined by a certain highest form

of loyalty. You become a citizen

of that country, or a subject of that country. Well,

that is, in itself

okay, you realized that you like Britain

more than Russia.

Your family lives there; in Brilyov’s case,

his daughter and wife live there permanently, and he

flies here every Saturday—or

conversely, flies to them for a couple of days.

That’s a constant. But you have determined for yourself

a kind of final form of loyalty.

Having weighed everything, you said that your life,

the future of your children, is ultimately connected

with Britain. That is precisely why admission to

citizenship—or, in this case, becoming a subject—

is surrounded by these, well, ritual

formalities. In order to become a subject

of the Queen, Sergey Brilyov

—already in 2001, while working

for state television, heading the

bureau of state television—you

are supposedly representing your country. On behalf

of that country, you go to

press conferences, raise your hand,

and say: ‘Sergey Brilyov, Russian

television, and here is my tough question for you,’

to a British politician who is there

making Russophobic statements,

asking why you believe this and that,

and so on—representing a side. Yet while being

a state TV journalist, you go

and become a subject, and you take

an oath—you recite not some vague

words, but specific words. You say: ‘I swear

to faithfully bear allegiance to Queen

Elizabeth II, her children, and heirs.’

‘I swear that I will be loyal

to Great Britain.’ In other words, this is you

standing there and saying those words. It is

a symbolic

and ritual act in which you

simply make a declaration: this country is

the main one for me, and all the other countries are

secondary. And the main country

for Sergey Brilyov is

Great Britain. And, well, agree, it is very

infuriating every Sat—

The thing is, he is not just a journalist—

he is a deputy general director at VGTRK.

At VGTRK.

That is all—not just the second

channel button; it is a huge structure. There are dozens

of regional TV stations,

dozens of radio stations, thousands—tens of

thousands—of employees. Their budget is

23.5 billion

rubles (about US$370 million at the time). So this guy, receiving

his salary from us, is one of the top figures

in Russian television, a deputy director. He

lectures us on life every Saturday. He hosts

the inauguration. And the inauguration—why is that, by the way?

By the way, I think—well, I allow for the possibility,

rather, let me put it this way: I allow that

the state system, all those webs of

checks and all the little officials who

are supposed to vet everyone,

may not know about Brilyov’s British

subject status, because the man

hosts every inauguration. It is a kind of

main broadcast.

There he is, Putin, walking in, so grand, and this

surely should require some special person.

Like in the old days, before sending

a cosmonaut into space, there would be some kind of

check—what if he had ‘enemies of the people’ among

his relatives? They checked the biography.

but he absolutely has to be a member there

of the party, and so on and so forth.

So even now, just some random guy can't be the one conducting the inauguration.

just some guy

We need to check that. I explained the whole thing—that

Putin's inaugurations, all this

patriotic nonsense—it's an obvious lie.

All those tough questions to foreign

leaders—all of that was being asked

all of that was being done by a citizen, a subject

of Britain, who swore his

loyalty

to Queen Elizabeth II, but he really is

offensive. I mean, did

Brilyov commit a crime?

Actually, he did. Sorry, it just occurred to me

just now.

I remembered—do you recall there were protests in

Volokolamsk over the landfills, and one of the

leaders of those protests, a guy named Artyom

Lyubimov, had a case fabricated against him

because the FSB sent over a piece of paper saying

that he supposedly had American

citizenship. And if you don't inform

the Russian authorities about your other

citizenship, then a criminal case is opened

against you. Lyubimov had to

run to the U.S. embassy and get

a certificate from them saying it was all fake and that he was not

some kind of citizen. The case was dropped.

But here we know for an absolute fact that

Brilyov

is a British subject. We know that he is

on the voter rolls.

He couldn't have ended up there by accident. His wife

and daughter live there; he stays there on a regular basis.

They simply have no other basis

for permanent residence there except

citizenship, the status of a subject

of the Queen. And, frankly, I'm almost

sure that he did not notify

the relevant authorities.

Which means he committed a crime.

A formal offense, but still a crime.

Let the FSB or whoever else

deal with him, but as far as all of us are concerned,

he acted in a simply insulting way—not

just a crook, but a lying

crook. Not just some famous official who

bought real estate abroad—

because apparently life here is bad, here

education is bad, healthcare is

bad.

That's why they all go there. But this is even more than that—

he actually took citizenship while serving as

a state TV correspondent. I mean, what kind of

bottomless hypocrisy is that? By the way,

now it's clear why Sergei

Brilyov

one of the reasons why he speaks so softly,

so gently,

such a propagandist—a propagandist of good

news—because if he were to go

in the style

of one of those completely deranged

types—say, Shenin (a Russian TV host)—

well, they probably wouldn't let him into Britain, just like

they didn't let Kiselyov (a Russian propagandist) in. And for him that would be

a problem, because then it would start

a whole investigation: let's not let

Brilyov into Britain—and then it would turn out we can't

not let him in, he's our citizen. There he is,

standing right here with us,

with a portrait of the Queen and all that,

probably voted for Brexit too.

That's why his program has this very

carefully evasive tone. But despite the fact that

he may not provoke the same kind of

raw, sharp emotions as

Solovyov, or that same Gabrelyanov,

I urge all of you to help

spread this video.

Because for 17 years—seventeen years—this guy has been on

state television, and he, well, he

has raised millions on his propaganda,

basically brought up an entire generation.

Putin has effectively been in power for 19 years,

and this man has spent 17 of them singing his praises. So it's very

important that everyone finds out now: yes, this is

the kind of guy he is—he swore

allegiance to the United Kingdom, and yet here he is,

sitting here telling us about

Putin. And my fundraising department will cut my head off with a chainsaw

if I don't now

mention—remind you about—the magical link

to FBK info; it's in the description. If

you like what we do, then

go there and sign up for

a donation, because investigations—

we do these great investigations, but

they do require expenses. We said so casually

today in the video: we checked and

found Brilyov on the citizenship lists. But that meant

days and hours that had to be spent

in that place searching. I mean, we

understood

that something was off there, and most likely

he was a citizen: his wife keeps showing up there,

his daughter keeps showing up there and lives there,

they have property there—so overall

analytically, we understood that

Brilyov is a subject of

the United Kingdom.

But it had to be proven, and that really took

hours and hours and hours of work.

And we put in those hours and do this work with your

money, so if you support us,

it will be easier for us—and harder for Sergei Brilyov.

Generally speaking, it will go worse for Sergei Brilyov.

And isn't it true that Sukhotsky got

12 days under the article for petty

hooliganism?

Well, 12 days isn't insignificant. We

don't get less than that. By the way, speaking of

cases like that—if they catch Husky (the Russian rapper) again

next time, he'll probably get

significantly more. Again, once more,

despite the fact that we obviously have different

I don't share the political views of this

remarkable rapper at all,

and I feel not a shred of schadenfreude. The fact that he has now been

unjustly convicted for something that should not be subject to prosecution is

wrong. In other words, we have to set aside, you know,

this whole context of what was supposedly wrong in his songs,

what he says there, and what he

said earlier about Donbas (the eastern Ukrainian region contested since 2014), or about Crimea,

or about anything else. He may have said things that were pleasant

to some people and unpleasant to others,

but he was jailed unjustly, and once again we have

been reminded that this government

will devour anyone simply because it needs

someone to devour.

So Husky got

12 days in jail.

Narik Maloyan asks: does Article 18 of the ECHR (European Convention on Human Rights) have any

practical significance?

How exactly will that give you

more room to act? Narik, if you get to the root of it, it won't. What

practical significance does it have? None. But it does have

legal significance, because

it establishes a fact. In the beautiful Russia of the future

— the Russia of the future —

when we put all of them on trial, from

Brilev

to these judges, it will make our case

more serious, because we will already have

simply

proof: a court will have recognized

that there was a political motive. So

to throw them all in prison, we

will need to make less effort.

In Russia right now, does it change anything? No. They will keep using

arrests at rallies, but

obviously they will, because they don't want

me taking part in them. They will keep

obstructing our work,

and they will do so because they

don't want investigations about

Brilev to be published. From a legal point of view,

for future court practice this matters; from the

standpoint of moral satisfaction

it matters; from the standpoint of other similar

cases it matters. From a practical standpoint,

they have the power, they run everything here,

and until we bring out onto the streets

a radically larger number of

people — until a million people

come out, until we can organize the kind of

intensity of pressure that will force

them to retreat —

then of course it has no

practical effect. Will someone refuse to

do something out of fear of this ruling?

There are plenty of examples. Will Putin refuse

to steal another billion

dollars? The answer is no, he will not. Good

question. William Eisenhower asks: has it ever happened

that your team checks an official

and he turns out to be squeaky clean — no

expensive real estate, no

huge bank accounts?

All the time. First of all, we very

often don't find anything, that's

natural. For the majority of

officials

we find nothing. And then, what does

"not squeaky clean" mean? This system is such

that many people in it simply cannot

steal. They would like to, yes, but they are not

close enough to the feeding trough. Some are afraid, some

simply don't have the opportunity. So we don't

say we've found someone squeaky clean. We

find that, say, he receives a salary

that is fairly high — officials now receive

large salaries — and more or less

lives on that salary, is not involved in business,

his wife doesn't run a business either, she doesn't have 10

expensive cars — so he lives

on, say, 120,000 rubles a month as an official, or

450,000 rubles as a State Duma deputy,

and we haven't found anything else major on him.

But that does not make him, for us,

squeaky clean, because he is

part of this government. He still bears

responsibility for what is happening.

So in that sense, we do not put him on a white

list; we do not place him on the list

of those who should be sent to the

defendants' bench. Leonid Novikov

asks: could the Communist Party of the Russian Federation (CPRF) in the future become

your ally, or do you think it is

gradually drifting toward being a tame

Kremlin opposition?

There's nothing for it to drift toward. The CPRF

is a tame Kremlin opposition party. At the same time,

I constantly support the CPRF.

During the last gubernatorial elections, on this

program I kept talking about candidates

from the CPRF and even from the LDPR, in the case of

Khabarovsk Krai.

Even though that is absolutely

a puppet, a pocket party. But that's the thing:

today they are tame, tomorrow

less tame. In any case, first and

foremost, we must act against the monopoly

of United Russia.

That is why I see nothing

wrong with this — people will start throwing tomatoes at me,

as Husky would say,

what do you call them, from the people of

Patriarch's Ponds (an upscale central Moscow neighborhood) to

— but still, what I'm saying is:

you can and should vote for the Communists

for rational reasons,

because in that case United Russia will lose.

Because, as you can all see, there is no

normal alternative right now. So let's

vote for the Communists so that we have fewer

United Russia people on the field, so that

their position weakens. That needs to be done, and we need to

stop endlessly agonizing: my God,

they're Stalinists, they're bad, they're

a tame opposition. Yes, they're Stalinists,

a tame opposition — but if we are

going to be a little smarter, we

understand that our task is to defeat United Russia.

lower it so they get fewer votes

controlled, because when they

control 90 percent, the Communists

a pocket opposition; when they

control 40 percent, the Communists

will stop being a pocket opposition, that’s it

and that’s all. I have a section called

“The Horrors of War in Their Heads,” and here

there’s a lot to cover. Let me race through

it at breakneck speed—I’ve already talked so much that

the program is already coming to an end, I mean

that is, over the week—I wasn’t on air last week

last week because this nonsense happened

First of all, Ms. Lakhova, a member of the Federation Council

said that when she

commented on a proposal by one of the

deputies that the subsistence minimum needs to be raised

she said that, basically,

all those who are unhappy with low

wages and the high cost of

the food basket should remember

the horrors of war. And you know, the conclusion

the main conclusion to draw from this is not

that Lakhova is crazy, nor that they

should simply disband the Federation Council—who

even are these people? Where did this

woman come from? By the way, 5 to 6 million

rubles a year (about $55,000–$65,000). I mean, I’m older, I remember

where she came from. There used to be a party called

Women of Russia in the 1990s; they were all over the place

and then they drifted into United

Russia. Now this nomenklatura functionary is getting five and a

half million rubles (about $60,000) and

is calling on those whom—well, she, she is

a senator from Bryansk Region, where the average

official salary is 26,700 rubles a month (about $290)

in reality, I think it’s around 20,000 (about $220), and this

person, earning 5 million, speaks on behalf of

the people of Bryansk and says: let’s remember

the horrors of war. What the hell? The war was 75 years

ago.

There were horrors—yes. But what does that have to do with low

wages now? Let’s remember

Napoleon’s wars too, let’s remember

the horrors of the Permian period, when

cataclysms happened and 90 percent of living creatures

on Earth died out. All our problems—what,

some rapper like Husky (Russian rapper),

some Brilyov (likely TV host Sergey Brilyov)—you’re wasting your time

remember the horrors of the Permian period

trilobites were dying out by the billions—that’s what

that’s exactly the same idiotic logic. In no

way does this Lakhova have anything

to do with the war, nor does she have anything

to do with its horrors, or with its victories

the only thing she has anything to do with is that

right now the salary in Bryansk Region is 26

thousand rubles, and so really, well

what more can you say, once again, about the moral

they are stupid, immoral people, and the entire Federation Council

should simply be kicked the hell out

and here we smoothly move on to remember another

one

prominent Federation Council figure, Valentina

Matvienko—my favorite

she’s just a marvelous woman. She

declared that imported medical equipment

is a sign of bowing down to the West. Meanwhile

Matvienko herself, two months

earlier, was asked: what do you

think about a law that would

ban officials from receiving treatment abroad?

And she said: what are you talking about, that’s

a violation of the Constitution. How can we

forbid officials from being treated

abroad? And then immediately, just

two months later, she says that if you

or your grandmother go and want

to get, say, a scan on a tomography machine

a proper one, meaning an imported one, then

unfortunately that counts as bowing down to

the West. This person is constantly draped in

luxurious fur coats, covered in jewelry

we even did a little

investigation: Valentina Ivanovna

has a Chanel watch

worth $23,000. Well then give it up, Valentina

Ivanovna. Wear a watch from the Zarya factory or

some Poljot watch or something else

domestic. Why such

bowing down to the West, and for

$23,000 at that? She’s decked out head to toe in

Mikimoto pearls—so what’s all that for?

Come on then, let’s bring out granite

feeding troughs, hang up some Russian birch bark

folk gear, wrap some kind of kokoshnik (traditional Russian headdress)

from the Bolshevichka factory—why Mikimoto, then?

Tell us, Valentina Ivanovna, isn’t that bowing down

to the West? But they’re brazen scoundrels

simply real brazen scoundrels. They

there they are, draped in Mikimoto, telling people

that you can’t use it, that it would be

unpatriotic to use imported

ultrasound equipment in a country where there really is

a “Gift Firewood” campaign, and every

year it happens, and every year it

honestly fills me with rage

It’s a charity drive where elderly people

are bought firewood, and a large number of people

receive it

have it delivered. Our level of gas supply

in rural settlements is up to 57 percent, and

there, one of

these activists runs this campaign

one of these pro-government activists, he

runs this “Gift Firewood” campaign. Good for him

it’s good that he gave away firewood, but to me

it seems that the governor and

the president of a country where a

“Gift Firewood” campaign exists should simply

sink into the ground from shame. But we are

one of the world’s main gas producers; we have

record gas supplies going there, record supplies

going here. Putin was just recently sitting there

with Mr. Erdogan opening TurkStream (the gas pipeline)

billions of money have been spent, billions, tens

of billions

but how much would it cost if we gave these people

they should have installed gas, or at least bought firewood

using budget money, really, well, just

it’s infuriating, and yet it’s being presented as this kind of

powerful official caring about the people

love me, people, I brought you firewood, right

it’s not firewood that needs to be bought, people need to

demand that Matviyenko step down

from the Federation Council

and her Mikimoto pearls, have they been handed over already, seized?

because that’s illegal enrichment, and with the

money raised, you could buy firewood for everyone, or

better yet, install gas. And as for this sausage thing, listen

I’ve already gone over by 2 minutes, and I wanted

to rant, of course, about the sausage excise tax, well

again, it even sounds idiotic, yes, and we’re

seriously discussing it, and

the idea of introducing an excise tax on sausage is a ridiculous

thing, but it’s just one more, yet another

tax on poverty

because, well, who consumes the most

of this kind of product? Well, that is,

the lower a person’s standard of living,

the more they consume these kinds of cheap

substitute products: cheap sausages,

cheap processed meats. Sure, let them pay more

then. Next they’ll need a campaign not just to

just ‘give firewood,’ but ‘bring water’ and

whatever else — they already don’t have the money

to buy firewood

so sure, let them pay another 30 percent

in excise tax on sausages. Well, these, these people

really are

objectively enemies of Russia. I can’t

despite the fact that I’ve run over time

help but support the coolest flash mob

happening in Russia right now. It’s the

‘Putin Is a Thief’ flash mob. A schoolboy in

Krasnoyarsk Krai (a region in Siberia) simply wrote on

the blackboard: ‘Putin is a thief.’ He was

scolded for it, and let’s go ahead and watch 1

minute of what exactly the teacher is accusing

the Russian schoolboy of for

writing the plain truth on the blackboard. One minute.

and to those who

[music]

[music]

already in dozens of regions across Russia

this spontaneous flash mob is taking place, where

people are writing on blackboards, ‘Putin is a thief’

on the board in their classroom

not all, but many teachers, I think,

would gladly put their name to that

some people are twisting themselves up over it, well, let them

let them squirm — it’s the truth, after all, and

let those letters burn their eyes, because

it’s because of people like this

old lady

who was shouting, ‘What are you doing? You’ll be

thrown in jail!’ Because of people like her, in

Russia they have campaigns like ‘Give Firewood’

because of her they introduce excise taxes on sausage, and

because of her we’re forbidden from using

imported medical equipment, while

we can’t provide our own, either. So

I fully support this flash mob

I’m wrapping up the program. I would, I’d end it with

because we started with the rapper Husky

who has just been jailed because

it’s believed that he promotes an un

healthy lifestyle, specifically

drugs. So, as for the healthy lifestyle

as performed by our authorities, as carried out

by the main state company, it looks very

impressive. So, in Tomsk

Gazprom Transgaz Tomsk held

a major sporting event

called a bike ride for Russia Day. They

organized a bike ride, people rode bicycles, and

however many were there, never mind

five sections of the road were closed off, everything was blocked

it was all very pompous, Russia Day and all that

but what I liked most was the

‘Healthy Lifestyle’ project

the event budget for the healthy lifestyle event

which included

some things that were apparently essential for

the bike ride, and among those things were 62

liters of vodka and 124 liters of cognac, and these

people are jailing the rapper Husky. In the beautiful

Russia of the future

during bike rides we will not be

drinking 164 liters of cognac

thank you very much to everyone who watched until

next Thursday