- Good evening everyone. Today in my studio I will have a conversation with Dmitry Andreevich Muratov, editor-in-chief of Novaya Gazeta.
- I'll fix it, Xenia ...
- Yes, fix it. I know that you were the editor-in-chief until November 2017...
- Yes, I was the elected editor-in-chief, I did not participate in these elections, now I am the chairman of the editorial board of the newspaper, this is our highest body. And the chairman of the board of directors, you can say that the publisher.
- Well, yes. And besides, a confidant and co-chairman of the public headquarters of the candidate for the presidency of Russia, Grigory Yavlinsky. This, of course, was a surprise, Dmitry Andreevich.
- Unpleasant for you, Xenia Anatolyevna?
I wouldn't say unpleasant, but amazing.
- Why?
- I just wanted to ask you, among other things - in connection with what did you make such a decision?
- And what could prevent me, Ksenia Anatolyevna?
- Never mind. No, it seemed to me that a journalist of such a high level in such a high position should not participate in political life, obviously supporting this or that candidate. We see this position in Venediktov, and in Sindeeva, and in many other journalists. And in this sense, in general, it is surprising that you decided to violate this principle.
- I agree, the principle is violated, I'm the only one, that's why I violated it.
- No, you are not alone. There is also Sungorkin, who is Putin's confidant. There are two of you.
- And, therefore, there are two of us with Vladimir Nikolaevich.
- You are in good company.
I will explain my position. But, since you are also a journalist and said that after these presidential elections you will create your own party, then there are three of us - you, Sungorkin and me, right?
- Well, I'm not a journalist anymore, I sort of stopped ...
- You're on vacation.
— ...for the time being this activity is temporary.
- Here I am. So that you know, I, too, in accordance with the law, from the moment Yavlinsky is registered, I go on vacation. And the newspaper has never been a party newspaper, and my personal preferences do not apply to the newspaper.
- But you understand, so I left, so I left, I don’t appear on Dozhd on purpose at all, I’m not there, this is a large public space, any person can prove to you that since my vacation I’ve been there except as the interviewee is absent twice.
But your spirit lives there.
- No, well, listen, he lives, but I'm not there, but you still go to the newspaper.
- Yes. The anniversary of the newspaper is coming soon and, of course, I gather people on this occasion, and we discuss it...
- Well, you, like Putin, he also formally does not violate the laws, but in reality everyone understands that everything is being done. Here you have the same.
- Exactly. Only there is no such law that I have broken.
- Well, there is an ethical law.
- I am pleased to invite you on April 1 to us for 25 years. And I invite you as a guest, not a host, Ksenia Anatolyevna, this is fundamentally important, take a break.
- Thanks.
“Now I will seriously answer your question. I had a best friend, his name was Yuri, and his last name was Shchekochikhin. And Yura Shchekochikhin was a member of the Yabloko faction in the State Duma, he was involved in the investigation, including the investigation that led to his tragic death. He was poisoned, and in a week this youthful 53-year-old man had no skin left, and a 90-year-old old man was lying in the coffin. Medical experts were instructed to consider him a veteran of the Patriotic War, a liquidator of the accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant, although he was born in 1953. I think I have a debt to Shchekochikhin and to Yavlinsky, who supported Yura all his life.
And the editors supported me, saying: “You are going on vacation, Dmitry Andreevich, and the rest is your own business for this period.” So I got permission from the editor.
And one more thing connects us. I worked a lot (I once told you about it) in different wars. Once the newspaper, thanks to Major Izmailov and Shchekochikhin's group, freed 171 people - our soldiers and hostages - from Chechen captivity.
The first prisoners were released by Yavlinsky in December 1994, when: “Oh, some mercenaries,” Defense Minister Grachev refused them after he sent 40 tanks there to attack Dudayev’s “palace”. And now, when I hear “oh, some mercenaries, but these are not ours ...” and I hear these hybrid and show-off quirks, I think that we need to support the person who went to Nord-Ost, pulled out several children from there, tried to negotiate and at least saved many human lives, being the first to come to Chechnya to exchange himself for prisoners. That earns my sincere respect.
- Mine too. But it just seems to me that there are different ways to support. When a journalist, a journalist like you, decides to take such an already active political position, well, for many it is still such a very important marker in your professional future.
- Maybe. So I don't regret it.
How long have you been making this decision? How difficult was it for you, not difficult? That is, I am sure that these ethical issues, they also stood before you.
- Of course. It would be an ethical violation for me not to support Yavlinsky, a member of the supervisory board and public council of our newspaper since 1993, in difficult times.
- And what, in your opinion, is the difficulty of his moment now?
- And then we skip the previous question, I don’t answer it?
- No, why?
“Then I will answer it. Yavlinsky called me, probably ten days ago, I conveyed his request to the editorial board of Novaya Gazeta and asked: “What do you think? Because, on the one hand, I want to support Grigory Yavlinsky, on the other hand, I don’t want any, as you say, damage to the newspaper.” The newspaper happily agreed to my participation, believing that the reputation of such a person as Yavlinsky would definitely not harm the newspaper in any way.
By the way, we also support you. I am not part of your headquarters, but if you noticed, we support many things that create an alternative in the country. And if you haven’t “merge” yet after the elections, then it will be generally cool.
We support Navalny's efforts when he involves a large number of people in the discussion of problems, very important problems. First of all, of course, he is engaged in corruption, not much spreading to other things.
Here we have to die for the Motherland all the time, Ksenia Anatolyevna. And we must learn to live for the Motherland. And for this we need to stop fighting.
Zhenya Roizman somehow accurately noted that patriotism and love for the Motherland have become different things in our country. But this newspaper should not be taught to love the Motherland. We really want to have a country in which the current poverty will not remain. Stop wars. Defeat poverty.
I overheard what you said to the voters. Today I heard what Yavlinsky said. Here, by the way, you have a lot in common.
— Yes, we have generally similar positions.
- 25 thousand salary in Tomsk, he says, and 8% of the population of the city, past which this giant pipe "Power of Siberia" passes, which drives gas to China for our money ...
Yes, it doesn't work...
- ...to China, and 8% of everything is gasified in this area. So I want patriotism to be in gasification. So that he is not in show-offs that are thrown from the sofa to Ukraine, but so that this is a real struggle against our poverty. Then we can talk about bitcoins.
No, look, I just want to be understood correctly...
- Did I explain myself?
- I relate to Grigory Alekseevich, really ...
Did I still answer the question?
— Yes, definitely.
Answered, thank you.
But there is one thing I would like to say. Look, Grigory Alekseevich, I also respect him very much and treat him with respect. But I, too, during the “Direct Line”, maybe you heard, said my opinion that the only thing that bothers me about his nomination now is that, well, like any activity, you see, it doesn’t matter there should be some kind of KPI ( business performance indicator- approx. ed.). It can be expressed in different ways. Maybe you can't make huge money because the newspaper business itself...
- But we took all the prizes of the world, yes.
— Yes, you took all the prizes of the world. Or you are in the expert community, Novaya Gazeta in the expert journalistic community, of course, is a premium media in terms of reporting and journalism standards.
- Thanks.
- It is a fact. This is your KPI, this is what you can present to the world. In my opinion, in politics, too, of course, there is a KPI - this is that you can show something, some results over the years of your work as a political leader, political activity.
- But after all, Grigory Alekseevich has also been engaged in political activities for more than 30 years. And, you see, if we look at the results of this activity from the point of view of the representation of the party in parliament, from the point of view of support, from the point of view of public opinion ... Well, there is also an oddity in this: you have been doing this for 30 years, you have no results did not achieve...
- I understand. I understand this number. That is, I can express my point of view already, right?
— Yes, definitely. I'm just wondering if you don't think...
“Then I will tell you.
“Then what is all this for?”
— You know, your fellow countryman and my favorite playwright Yevgeny Lvovich Schwartz wrote a brilliant phrase in The Dragon that there are a lot of people who fit into the existing reality, who fit, as they say now, into trends, they are defined for him by one phrase: when his wife was strangled next to such an advanced dude, he said: “Honey, be patient, maybe everything will work out.” And stayed on trend.
- So you have...
- Now-now ... I mean, we have such a structured policy for the last 20+ years that a person who cheats on himself all the time can be on the crest, and a person who always says: “No, guys, twice two is four, Russia should be a European country, small and medium-sized businesses should be its basis, education is a priority, militarism is not a priority, ”who says these very things, they say to him:“ No, old man, well, already twice two is already seven, well, agree, compromise, well, seven. And he says: "No, four."
Well, look, I'll give you another example. Not really, I don't agree. That is, twice two is really four. But, you see, we see an example, and for me it is amazing, though, of the activities of Alexei Navalny, who, while also saying that Russia is a European country, that it is necessary to develop business, etc., in general, sharing our common with Yavlinsky, and with me, and with him values, showed that it is possible to engage in politics in a different way, gained a huge number of supporters ...
- Well done.
- ...had, in my opinion, a brilliant pre-election campaign for the previous year.
- All people are different.
- Well, even I compare, and why, for example, I said that for the sake of Navalny I am ready ...
- Ksenia, look, no person, no person - neither you nor Alexei Anatolyevich, can say: "Since I am an alternative, there is no alternative for me." Well, you see, it would sound strange. So yes, I already said praise for Navalny's election campaign. What you have advanced...
- Dmitry Andreevich, I'm not talking about that. Wait, let me also ask a question, you will answer.
No, no, I haven't answered your previous question yet.
- Well, wait, I didn’t finish it, about Navalny.
It becomes a monologue. Wait a second. So I started asking you, and you didn't listen to me. You know, Churchill had a favorite phrase: “When I interrupt you, please don’t interrupt me,” he liked to say in Parliament. I give Churchill's quote to you.
- Thanks.
- Oh sure.
- For Prokhorov.
- I was an observer too, I found violations, I actively participated.
You were an observer, right?
Yes, I actively participated.
- Well, you see. Advanced Prokhorov, Prokhorov, who achieved a lot, with a high KPI, he took and merged. He took and merged. And here, you know what, people here say: “Well, Yavlinsky won’t win anyway,” and then they get terribly offended at him that he lost. Either they run for the SPS, then for "Nah-nah" ...
Wait, don't you think...
- ... then for Prokhorov. And where are the results?
- I'll tell you where.
- Where are the results, KPI for this category of voters, where are these results?
- KPI of what ... Look, no one has a guarantee, you know, this is when you take on some obligations or you want something, there is no guarantee that you will not die, that you will not be crushed, that a person will not merge, will not break his promises ...
- Well, I would still like the person not to merge, so that he observes the contract with the voters.
— Dmitry Andreevich, I would like to, and so do I.
- It didn't work, did it?
But we don't have any guarantees. Prokhorov, for some reason, I don't know why, it didn't work out.
- And RBC also had to pass it like this, how to drown Mumu?
- This is probably a question for Mikhail Dmitrievich, I am not his confidant, I am not the head of his headquarters.
- No, since you are a voter, questions should be asked not only to candidates, but also to voters.
“Wait, Prokhorov is a bad example. I'm disappointed because I voted for him. I really thought that...
- I am disappointed.
- Wait. Look, just because I'm disappointed doesn't mean, in the first place, that you shouldn't try again. For example, I think that, you know, it’s like in love, because someone deceived you there once or broke your heart, this does not mean that you don’t have to fall in love again, you see.
- No, if love, what does KPI have to do with it?
— One second. Given that now we are talking about the KPI of some real achievements. You compare with Prokhorov and, of course, Yavlinsky, in terms of the consistency of his position and some kind of participation, has more achievements than Prokhorov in fact. But come on, you can, I would still like you to comment on my comparison.
- Please.
- Here is Yavlinsky, who has been doing something for 30 years, and in fact the results of this activity are extremely few. They exist, but they are very small.
- Well, how to interpret.
- And there is Navalny (I would like this comparison specifically), a person who has conducted an incredible campaign over the past 5 years, in a year, unlike Yavlinsky (who just entered this race and, again, unexpectedly and suddenly), Here is a man who has been engaged in his election campaign for a year, he showed everyone an example of how this is done.
- Do you want me to compare you, Navalny and Yavlinsky?
- One second...
You know what makes me sad...
“Wait, you don’t let me ask a question for the third time, Dmitry Andreevich, this is not fair.
- Your broadcast, but we are talking about Yavlinsky. I'm in pain...
- Wait a second, I want to ask you a question, give me the opportunity, please.
- Let's.
- I don’t understand, if you see a comparison between Navalny and Yavlinsky, I would like to talk about these specific two people now. One person who has been in politics for 30 years is more than Putin, and yet we do not see any results, and Alexei Navalny, who has been in politics for 5 years and has become a prominent international politician, has accumulated huge support around him, managed to make the brightest presidential campaign . Well, don’t you think that in this comparison it’s obvious what kind of people the future belongs to, who is an active force ...
- You're obviously fine.
- ...who can really make some changes, and who can't. And I have a question for you: why, seeing this difference, do you choose, well, how to say, a person of the same values approximately, but with a completely different KPI, with a completely different result, with a result that is not there?
- I will answer you. Alexei Anatolyevich Navalny, if I'm not mistaken, is 43 years old. Yavlinsky at this age, if I'm not mistaken again, was the Deputy Prime Minister of the Russian Federation and at this age he built the 500 days program, and with Boris Nemtsov they largely implemented it in the Nizhny Novgorod region, and he tried to make sure that the country did not turn back from reforms when the Chechen war began. Unfortunately, the forces that said that we needed a small victorious war more than reforms won. Unfortunately, it didn't work out.
I want to see what will be the KPI of Alexey Anatolyevich. I like his election campaign, I like the way he meets people. I looked at all these meetings in different cities. But we are not talking about the results yet.
Moreover, he was removed from the presidential elections, just like Yavlinsky in the last presidential elections. Yavlinsky was simply removed, having decided that it would be Prokhorov, and not Yavlinsky. In the same way, now, in my opinion, they treated Navalny absolutely mediocre, stupidly and not honestly. But the results are too early to compare. An election campaign cannot be a result, it can be a stage...
Photo provided by the headquarters of Ksenia Sobchak. sobchakprotivvseh.ru - If Navalny were registered, would you become his confidant?
- You know, even now we, I mean the newspaper, but still I have been working in it from the first day, from the first issue, despite the fact that Alexei Anatolyevich will not be a registered candidate, we officially announced that we will cover campaign of an unregistered candidate, who is called "the same character." And this will be our human support. And there are my personal preferences, I have absolutely every right to them and I exercise this right.
— No, well, this is an absolutely understandable position.
- Can I tell you about you now? This is a micro review. Do you know what I liked? I liked the charm of audacity that your campaign has. And I also thought that you began to treat people very attentively. It's as if this third wall disappeared between the hall and the stage, and you plunged into a huge amount of someone else's pain ... I heard how you dealt with houses, I heard how you stood up for a human rights activist in Chechnya. And it seems to me that this is not the kind of story about which they will say with disgust - hey, she is doing small things there - no. This is sympathy, sympathy for people, which the country is deprived of. Here cruelty in our country is cool, and the manifestation of sympathy is weakness. And it seems to me that you, despite Sobchak's famous quote about the fact that she is a big machine, consisting of something impenetrable there, should remain the same impenetrable, but become sympathetic. You have this clever sympathy, I congratulate you on this.
- Well, thank you, yes, to be honest, I myself did not think that for me it would be such a painful experience. Because at the beginning, I'll be honest, it was very hard for me. Because when you face such pain and you understand that you can’t help everyone right now, and these are people who come to you with such hope, and you try to do at least something, but it’s still very little compared to the state in which they live, this is actually a very terrible feeling.
“But it seems to me that you have escaped from the glamorous, gingerbread world. So I wanted to ask you now in a new capacity about what everyone remembers - your dialogue at the Nika award ceremony with my beloved Chulpan Khamatova. Then you asked the question...
- ... she would have become Putin's confidant if she had not been involved in charity work.
“And now, imagine, now you have gone over to the side, when suddenly your circle took up arms against you.
- This is true.
- Now they say to you: “Why are you, Ksenia (here are all the people who are with you on“ you ”), but why did you suddenly become a“ sparring partner ”,“ a Kremlin project ”, and why are you all are you doing this?" You say: "I have a public mission, then I want to make a party, I want to engage in a public mission." They say: "No, no, we don't believe a bit in the purity of your thoughts." Is this how it feels to be against your own, or when your own turned against you?
- It's hard, because I understood that this would be the case, of course, when I made the decision.
“Understood, right?
- I sat straight, and I remember it, I thought to myself, discussed with my relatives how much, excuse me, shit will pour out from all sides, and that it will pour out from the Kremlin, and propagandists, and, most importantly, from those people with whom I drink coffee ...
- That's it, I'm talking about it.
- ... whom I love, whom I follow on Facebook, whose respect I have been trying to earn for many years, and it was very important to me. And, you see, yes, it was very hard for me, because I understood that these people, whose, well, whose friendship, whose respect I won over the years and proved that I, you see, am not a girl from Dom-2, did not fool, but that I am a person with worthy thoughts, and that they again all the same: “Oh no, after all, here you are.”
And nothing can be proven.
- Impossible. But, you know, it's just a matter of time...
- I agree. Well done.
- ... time and actions. That is, I know that if I do not change myself, if I go towards this goal with dignity, there will be neither self-censorship, nor the permission of some kind of censorship there, that, maybe, this is not necessary now, but it is necessary ... You just need to ... As long as I know that I am saying from a to z what I really think, want, and what I consider important, as long as I defend those values that are important to me, so far ...
- Let them talk.
“…compromise, which is always in such actions, of course, there is, but it's worth it. Because this compromise is for a very big purpose.
- But you unfriended many?
- Yes, many unfriended me. And a lot of people think I...
- And who unfriended whom more - you or you?
- I'm nobody, no, I don't have such a story at all. I don’t take offense at people, on the contrary, I’ll see some very unpleasant post from my former colleague and friend, on the contrary, I call, write and say: “Listen, well, give me a chance, give me time to pass so that you I saw that what I was doing was for the common good.” After all, I am not doing anything wrong, I am doing for us for all so that we have some real power, some kind of voice that you will hear. And I really believe in it. And more than that...
“Sorry to intrude, I won’t interrupt anymore, I promise.” I do not like this degree of unbridled such, with spinning nostrils, hitting without listening to arguments. They told me before the broadcast: “But you can talk about this, about this and about this ...” You know, but my soul does not lie when you have already been torn to pieces.
“It’s okay, I’m not used to it.
— You know, on the one hand, the media srach has always been such a trend, such surfing was organized on it, and the media srach was a symbol of advancement, and now it seems to me that it has become a symbol of betrayal, when at important moments in a person’s life, suddenly you, who drank and coffee, and wine, and vodka, and waving white flags to passing cars with white balloons, and suddenly in one second ... I have a favorite writer, Jonathan Foer ...
- Lovely, I love it.
- Translated by Vasya Arkanov. In the book "Full Illumination", there is an old grandfather who says to his granddaughter: "You know, there are ten commandments, I'll tell you one more, the eleventh, so you remember it - don't change."
- This is true. But, listen, this, it seems to me, is still a period that needs to be passed. But, you know, it seems to me, Dmitry Andreevich, there is another very important thing. After all, when they poured all this over me and when I somehow shook myself off with it, I went around a big country. I saw a completely different picture, that's what you're talking about. First of all, I saw a very important thing, that people, for them this story about the "Kremlin agent", that's all - for them it doesn't matter at all. What matters to them is that you can convey these problems. It is important for them that at least some mediator appears between their grief and pain and power. I thought that if this Facebook of our mutual friends considers me an agent of the Kremlin, then let me be their agent in the Kremlin, because this huge number of people need just such an agent in the Kremlin. And they need something completely different: they want a person to appear who will be able to convey this position to the big leadership of the country, to Putin, to other officials through publicity, through federal broadcasts. And this is much more important for them, they come to me and say: “Well, you will have a debate, you tell us about the thermal power plant that we are building, because there is nowhere to put the Kemerovo coal, about journalists who are imprisoned, about Titiev, about those, about others, tell about it there. And this is a very important relationship for people.
- And suddenly there is such an embassy opportunity to hear the country and tell what it thinks, when this closed space becomes absolutely not enough for us.
- Just the only thing, I’ll correct it: after all, the ambassador is not quite the right image, because the ambassador is still in a different people. And this is my people, our people, this is still our country. Let the "intermediary", a person who is trying to establish this connection, be better.
- I agree.
I have one last question for you. Tell me what, in your opinion, will happen after the elections, what will the situation be like? Do you believe that there will be this line of young technocrats, which is much talked about, Putin's? Do you believe that there will be some kind of liberalization? Or do you think that these are all our empty hopes and dreams, and none of this will happen?
— You know, I have heard the president several times lately and heard people who are trying to paint a picture of the future for the country. They are very passionate about quantum, not even digital, but quantum reality, they are very passionate about blockchain technology, in which many decisions are made and controlled much more accurately than with the help of various bureaucratic stories.
But our main problem now is the problem of poverty. This is such a crucifixion of the country between bitcoin and poverty. There should be a program about poverty, that's just a program about poverty. We need to pull the country out of poverty. Then dignity will return. This is the first thing.
And the second thing: the country must return from the war. From the Ukrainian war, from all world wars, from all these hybrid stories, from all these PMCs. The interests of the country are within the country.
- Thank you very much.
Thank you, Xenia.
- Such a different conversation we had in the end, but very good, very with such a sincere intonation.
“I wasn’t interested in attacking you…
Verification of signatures of voters in support of Grigory Yavlinsky as a presidential candidate, which showed only 1.07% of defects (after which the CEC is obliged to register him), immediately caused several skeptical comments (the forward of which was Alexei Navalny) - from “their signatures were not actually checked ", and to "they could not honestly collect so many signatures."
Perhaps the skepticism is explained simply: none of the skeptics has (or almost no) experience in collecting signatures in support of his nomination. And, of course, he simply does not understand how this process is organized.
I do not undertake to answer for other parties and other candidates, but Yabloko collected signatures in elections at various levels for 25 years (starting with the elections to the State Duma in 1993). Collected and more than 100 thousand - "experience, the son of difficult mistakes", we have.
In 2018, to support the nomination of Grigory Yavlinsky as a candidate for the Russian presidency, Yabloko collected signatures in 81 regions of the Russian Federation. Signatures were collected by more than 3 thousand collectors, whose personal data was certified by a notary. In total, more than 300 thousand signatures were collected. After a thorough check at the regional headquarters, 160,000 were sent to the central headquarters (in Moscow, on Pyatnitskaya Street).
The second and very tough stage of verification took place already at the Yabloko headquarters. At the same time, such "external auditors" as Dmitry Muratov, Andrei Zayakin and Elena Dubrovina (formerly a long-term member of the Central Election Commission) took part in the verification of signatures. Journalists and public activists (for example, from Golos) could observe the receipt of signatures from the regions and their verification non-stop - everything was extremely open. We understood that signatures for Yavlinsky - unlike signatures for Putin - would be checked at the CEC literally under a magnifying glass. And any doubt that arose among the specialists who checked the signatures (including the involved handwriting experts) became the basis for culling the signatures.
As a result, 107,000 signatures were submitted to the CEC, of which 60,000 (from 74 regions) were selected by the commission for verification. As a result of the check, the indicated 1.07% of marriages, and Grigory Yavlinsky should receive the status of a registered candidate for the post of President of Russia.
And then - on the eve of the announcement of the official results of the verification of signatures, we were surprised to learn from Alexei Navalny a "terrible secret": it turns out that we "did not collect signatures at all," and he "thinks that Yavlinsky's headquarters forged 60 percent of the signatures." Dot. End quote from politician's twitter. And, besides, "there are no thousands of assemblers."
Does this mean that the mentioned three thousand collectors do not exist? That there were no people who in Moscow, St. Petersburg, Petrozavodsk, Pskov, and other cities came to the regional branches of Yabloko and put their signature? That the process of collecting signatures, which was “posted” daily by our headquarters on social networks, was a fiction? That there were neither "apple" activists who collected signatures, nor staff members who checked them?
Meanwhile, I saw with my own eyes how Yabloko collected signatures in St. Petersburg. I saw how people came to the office of the party on Shpalernaya Street to put their signatures. I saw how such famous Petersburgers as Alexander Sokurov and Oleg Basilashvili, Olga Starovoitova and Lev Kaplan put their signatures in support of the nomination of Grigory Yavlinsky. I saw how even those who, to put it mildly, are skeptical of Yavlinsky, but believe that he has the right to participate in elections, entered their personal data on the signature sheets and signed. I saw how these signatures were checked in St. Petersburg and in Moscow. I saw how spared no effort and time those who work in the election campaign. Did I get all this?
A politician who cares about his reputation has no right to unsubstantiated accusations against his opponents. And Navalny, who claimed 60% of allegedly forged signatures for Yavlinsky, is obliged to explain what exactly led him to this conclusion.
What information does he have and what is the source of this information? Where does this figure come from - 60% of signatures are forged? Not 30%, not 50%, not 70%, not 58%, but exactly 60%? Was he anonymously informed about this from the CEC? He was approached by people who said that their signatures for Yavlinsky were forged? His people were sent into the ranks of the collectors and deliberately forged signatures in order to now admit it? But the forgery of voters' signatures is a criminal offense: does this mean they turn themselves in confession?
However, Navalny is silent, like a schoolboy caught in a lie - and I understand why: he does not have any "sources" of his "information".
I agree with Lev Shlosberg: the prefix “I think” before the statement about the forgery of 60% of “apple” signatures saves Navalny from prosecution. But it does not eliminate the assessment of his words as false and offensive. Offensive for those who collected signatures for Yavlinsky, who checked them at our headquarters, and for tens of thousands of citizens who put these signatures. And I understand very well those who now address Aleksey Anatolyevich on the Internet with very harsh expressions or write about serious disappointment in him.
Alas: it is becoming more and more clear that (once again I agree with Schlosberg): the organizers of the “voters' strike” are not fighting Putin: they are fighting mainly Yavlinsky and Yabloko. What they need is not the defeat of Putin, but the most severe defeat of the Democrats - in order to keep this field for themselves. I hope that after Navalny's shameful "tweet" this will become clear even to some of his supporters...
Taking this opportunity, I want to clarify: of course, the institution of collecting signatures in the form in which it is used in Russia is repressive and serves, for the most part, the goal of removing the opposition from the elections.
"Yabloko" has repeatedly stated the need for its reform - complete abolition or, at the request of candidates, replacement with an electoral deposit, more than once introduced appropriate legislative initiatives.
Nevertheless, as long as this institution exists in its present form, everyone who takes part in elections has to reckon with it.
We have to learn how to collect signatures, and do it very carefully - in order to make it as difficult as possible for the authorities to remove them from the elections.
And one should not think that registration by signature is impossible: both Yabloko and other opposition parties and candidates have solved this problem many times, proving the authenticity of their signatures.
And if we assume in advance that the "signature" barrier is insurmountable, we must give up and give up the fight altogether. Give up the opportunity to appoint your deputies at different levels (who will later become an important and effective "tool" for solving citizens' problems). To give up the opportunity, if not to radically change the policy of the authorities, then at least to seriously influence it.
We are sure that it is necessary to fight. And in this struggle - as the experience of the same Shlosberg and his comrades in Pskov, the experience of our comrades in Karelia and St. Petersburg, Moscow and Kaluga, Kostroma and Vladimir, and other regions - shows, one can win.
Tags: Putin Navalny YavlinskyGrigory Yavlinsky spoke about the FBK investigation on Facebook. He wrote that if all this is true, President Putin should resign, and not just Prime Minister Medvedev. He also added that it is possible, if there is no resignation, then Putin will use this story in his election campaign and probe the possibility of changing the prime minister and the reaction of society to this.
On our flank, unfortunately, it is customary to suspect each other of venality, behind-the-scenes management from the Presidential Administration and other bad things. The second paragraph of the statement can be read ambiguously, I would not write like that. This, in my opinion, is an unfortunate statement.
However, the first part is more important here. Yes, and there is no reason to believe the information is untrue.
Update: Apparently, it is necessary to write more detailed. Yes, many people believe that the authorities are using Navalny and the FBK for their own purposes, promoting him in the process. Lebedev recently wrote about this, for example.
People have the right to such a position, they don’t write that Navalny goes to the Presidential Administration for envelopes and receives instructions there, they develop the version that the authorities are playing their games there through the FBK and leaking materials to them.
Such a position is not a reason for harassment, and certainly not a reason for twitching like “look, he said that we work for the Kremlin!”
Unfortunately, Navalny's supporters and FBK employees decided to twitch this case and are now spreading the following:
Fighting an internal enemy is often just as important to them as fighting government crooks, so their Twitter feeds quickly shifted from Medvedev to Yavlinsky.
As usual, not directly, but through Volkov, Navalny himself joined the case, without failing to convict Yavlinsky himself of working for Putin
Of course, such actions of the Navalny team are a failure and a disgrace. After a brilliant investigation about the prime minister, instead of talking about him, they turn their attention to the statement of Grigory Yavlinsky, and obviously distorting its content, without mentioning its main meaning.
It is precisely such actions that show that the anti-corruption fighter from Navalny is excellent, but the politician is not. As a politician, he quarrels people who have no reason to quarrel. Throwing accusations that have no reason to be voiced. It does not unite, but divides adequate people, calls them to persecution and ridicule of politicians who adhere, in general, to the same positions.
Failure and disgrace, friends. You need to grow up, it's impossible to win if you reduce such important stories to such a kindergarten
Saved
Grigory Yavlinsky spoke about the FBK investigation on Facebook. He wrote that if all this is true, President Putin should resign, and not just Prime Minister Medvedev. He also added that it is possible that if there is no resignation, then Putin will use this story in his election campaign and ...
"/>Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars, People's Commissariat of Education, Ministry of Foreign Affairs!... This person is familiar to me! Interrogation sign instead of a body. Dot overcoat. Instead of a brain - a comma. Instead of a throat - a dark evening. Instead of burkal - a division sign. So a little man came out, a representative of the population. So a citizen came out, getting out of his trousers ... ... Hiding in their lair, the wolves howl "Yo-my".
I. Brodsky "Performance"
What does the composition of the "new" government say? That it won't get any better. Outwardly, everything will be as it was, but in fact - worse. The objective reason is the economy is in crisis. Subjective - neither Medvedev nor his deputies have any idea of what should be done in the current conditions. And they don't want to have. Nothing to them.
THERE WILL BE NO "NEW" PUTIN
The essence of what is happening in connection with the formation of the government is the absence of changes for the better in the country. Refusal of any changes - emphasized, hypertrophied, squared. The minor shifts that have taken place only reinforce the impression of hateful hopelessness: Mutko at the construction site, Patrushev Jr. at the Ministry of Agriculture, Kudrin at the Accounts Chamber. Even writing about all this is boring.
But it cannot be otherwise. Because there is not and will not be any other, "new" Putin. Neither Putin 4.0 nor Putin 5.0. The re-approved president does not have any new ideas and proposals, there is no program for the modernization of the country, there is no image of the future, there is not even a program of action. Only a set of uncalculated declarations - "good wishes" - has been made public.
The essence of Putin's recent speeches - both before the presidential campaign and during the campaign, including the December "direct line" and the March message to the Federal Assembly - is a fundamental refusal to change the political course and carry out any reasonable and necessary reforms. Therefore, the seating order of the Krylovsky "quartet" does not matter.
The “breakthroughs” that the new-old president is talking about, while maintaining the current political course, are possible only in unwinding the repressive component of the regime. And Prime Minister Medvedev is quite suitable for this. He faithfully served the system in his place both before and after 2012. Covering Putin, he publicly voiced the key slogan of the current moment: "There is no money, but you hold on." Medvedev deserved it.
And the system by today has become such that there is no longer a “technical” government, or even a decorative parliament: both ministers and deputies (and absolutely everyone, including the so-called “parliamentary opposition”) are an organic part of a single authoritarian-bureaucratic system. This is called "nomenclature". Though in deputies, even in governors, even in ministers - they will fit everywhere. Universal soldiers of Putin. Personnel changes, of course, will happen. Dismissals are an effective resource: the hated "boyars" and "clerks" from the Kremlin porch will be thrown out when social tension rises.
What is the criterion for selecting personnel for the government and what is the logic behind such appointments? The only criterion for selecting personnel for the government is personal loyalty, and the logic of appointments is to ensure the indefinite retention of power.
CONTROL AND SAWING
As far as the Russian economy is concerned, economic policy (and this is exactly what the government should be doing) has narrowed to the limit. Now, economic policy in Russia means only oil prices, taxes and fees from the population, financing of the arms race and various military adventures (like Syria and Donbass), as well as crafty social handouts amid falling incomes. That is, modern economic policy is how to squeeze money from the population and how to distribute it for the goals of the regime. Well, and, if possible, how to “cut” what you can.
The staffing of this simple list of tasks is the meaning of the “replanting” of vice-premiers in the “new” government. The main function of the deputies is the distribution of budgetary funds in the conditions of economic stagnation and sanctions. Since the Russian government cannot influence oil prices or sanctions, the meaning of its work is to increase financial pressure on the population. The idea of raising the income tax has already been thrown in and is being tested. The fall of the ruble, declining real incomes of people - all this is interpreted as a source of replenishment of the treasury. The decision to raise the retirement age has almost been made. Taxes on e-commerce, tires, shoes, real estate, sheds, bathhouses, toilets, higher utility rates, and so on ad infinitum… There is still a redistribution ahead of us in the resource sector.
Government formation is a struggle for control over budgetary flows. An example of such undercover intrigue was the stuffing of information about the rest of the now former Deputy Prime Minister Prikhodko on Deripaska's yacht.
SIGNS AND MESSAGES
There are also significant ideological appointments in the 2018 government. The demonstrative retention of Medinsky as Minister of Culture is a message to the humanitarian community and the intelligentsia. And the appointment by the Minister of Science and Higher Education of the head of the Federal Agency for Scientific Organizations (a federal authority that most actively participated in the destruction of the Russian Academy of Sciences) is a personal message to all our scientists and every academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences.
The preservation of Lavrov and Shoigu in the cabinet of ministers, whose departments have become symbols of the isolationist aggressive foreign policy and the militarization of the country's life and public consciousness, is also significant. Lavrov, along with Medinsky, is one of the main propagandists in the country. The diplomat as a propagandist is an important element of the system. But if this is a return to the Soviet era, then not to Gromyko's "Mr. No", but rather to Molotov's "Stone Ass".
Shoigu also remained in place, despite all the obvious failures, such as the February incident near Deir ez-Zor in Syria, when Russian mercenaries died. A system that has relied on war becomes increasingly dependent on those who fight. And here we are talking not only about the Ministry of Defense, but also about those who actually lead those very mercenaries (see the article, February 2018). In the international arena, by the way, the story is the same with Assad and the Iranians: Russia turns out to be dependent on its Middle Eastern “allies”, and the prospects for the development of this dependence for our country are very unfavorable (see article, May 2018). Therefore, if the policy does not change, then there is no room for personnel maneuver either in the Ministry of Defense or in the government in general, and there is no chance of correcting the state of affairs in the country either.
It was necessary to resist this, fighting for the transformation of the plebiscite into elections, clinging to all the opportunities provided by the Constitution and the intention of the system to at least formally and partially observe it. Was there little chance? Maybe. But ignoring the elections and then discussing the possibility of change is absurd, fully in line with what Putin is imposing on society. The elections are over. Where is the hope for changes in polls of sociologists? Whom do 59% of the population expecting changes want to see at the head of the government? Sechin?
Grigory Yavlinsky is an informed independent politician who is able to give well-founded assessments. Of course, he is politically engaged, nevertheless, everything is known in comparison, I judge from the point of view of the interests of the grassroots subject, and the democratic party "Yabloko" positions itself as a spokesman for those. Yavlinsky knows Navalny well, who worked for him at his headquarters on Pyatnitskaya Street (I have been there, Navalny sat under huge posters of Khodorkovsky). Sunday's Moscow elections are the start of a new acute political cycle, politicians and parties are rushing to take strategic starting positions, trump-program cards are being used. Yavlinsky's harsh statements about Navalny yesterday provoked a variety of responses. Below I will cite not only them, but also the very interview of Yavlinsky, which he gave to Tikhon Dzyadko on Radio Ekho Moskvy. - Original taken from balance-seeker to "Guards - to the fire!"
Original taken from afranius to "Guards - to the fire!"
Echo of Moscow wets Navalny with Yavlinsky shaken from mothballs -- http://echo.msk.ru/programs/personalno/1148666-echo/
Fabulous, absolutely!
"Navalny is the destroyer of Russia, Navalny is a representative of large, oligarchic capital", yeah; to Sobyanin, ChSKH - no complaints.
No, it’s still cool to sausage THEM ALL - from Limonov to Yavlinsky!
Yes, for this alone Navalny could have been erected a monument; remember - in all the regional centers there were such small Lukichi, half a man's height, he-he-he ...
----------------
O! -- and Mitrokhin there too: http://echo.msk.ru/blog/serguei_parkhomenko/1150016-echo/
Some of these Apples were made quite some kind of unsanitary chatter, like "Fruit-Favorable" of my military youth, at 95 kopecks per bottle ...
Let's delve into the considerations and judgments of Grigory Alekseevich Yavlinsky, this is a kind of "document of the time", because with Navalny and Mitrokhin and some other figures and activists who declared themselves after December 2011, we now live a long time (Echo of Moscow aired on September 4, 2013) :
T. DZYADKO: In Moscow, 20 hours and 6 minutes. Good evening, you are listening to the Ekho Moskvy radio station. At the microphone Tikhon Dzyadko, the program "Special Opinion". And I am glad to welcome Grigory Yavlinsky, politician, economist, one of the founders of the Yabloko party, to this studio. Good evening.
G. YAVLINSKY: Absolutely exactly. Hello. Glad to see you.
T. DZYADKO: Let me remind you of all our coordinates. +7-985-970-45-45 is the number for SMS messages. You can also send messages to Ekho Moskvy using Twitter if you write to the @vyzvon account, and using our website on the Internet www.echo.msk.ru. There, on the site, you asked questions before the broadcast. A lot of questions came, some of them will definitely sound today as part of this broadcast. And the broadcast will to a certain extent be devoted to upcoming events - these are the elections of the mayor of Moscow, which will be held on Sunday. But, probably, we will not only talk about Moscow, but also about the connection between the situation in Moscow and what is happening in the country as a whole.
But here is where I would like to start. Over the course of this election campaign, over the past few months, we have been witnessing two models. One model is that the mayor of Moscow is a politician and, to a certain extent, a political leader, one of the most important people in the country. This is stated by some of the candidates. Some of the candidates, in particular, Moscow Mayor Sergei Sobyanin, have repeatedly said that the position of Moscow Mayor is an economic position, and it has nothing to do with politics. Which of these models do you choose?
G. YAVLINSKY: Now, one second. Thank you very much, I would like to take the opportunity to be on Echo now and say a few words. A great misfortune happened in our party: one of our comrades, a very young man, Volodya Voronezhtsev, died. We all express our deepest sympathy and condolences to his family, friends, and everyone.
T. DZYADKO: We are joining.
G. YAVLINSKY: Here. We are very sorry. I'm sorry for interrupting you. And now back to your question. Well, the question is very funny. He causes a smile because as soon as Sergei Semenovich says that he is a politician, Vladimir Vladimirovich will immediately remove him from the mayors of Moscow, and everything will end right there. Therefore, no matter what Sergei Semenovich thinks, no one, I think, even the Prime Minister, is allowed to say that he is a politician under the conditions of the system that was created under Vladimir Vladimirovich. Ask the prime minister. He will say: “Why are you asking me such questions? I, there, have to deal with Khabarovsk, there, or something else ... "
T. DZYADKO: Komsomolsk-on-Amur.
G. YAVLINSKY: Yes, Komsomolsky-on-Amur, there, I don't know, I have to do whatever you want, but I'm not a politician at all. Here we have one politician, and that's enough for us, there is nothing to disturb us here. Therefore, this is a question, it follows from the mess that is in the minds today.
T. DZYADKO: Well, if we talk about today's porridge. And if we talk about some objective reality, about how it should be?
G. YAVLINSKY: The objective reality, of course, is that the elected leader of a city of 12 million or 10 million, under all conditions, in any conditions, is, of course, a politician. But politics is a substantive category. That is, he must know what to do, he must really know the economy, he must know Moscow, he must understand it, he must understand it. He must, by the way, love her very much, he must be a man who walked her all the way once, who really knows her. Can you imagine when they come to a person, they say: there ... and they call ... I won’t name which avenue. There, some Dmitrovsky, right? Here. Something needs to be done there. And he doesn’t even know where this Dmitrovskoe highway goes, or where it is located, or where it all is, where it is. He makes a decision. How, what it is tied to, what kind of people live there, what neighborhoods are there, how it all works. The mayor of Moscow, he must be a major business executive, an intelligent specialist, especially in the city's economy. And he must also be a politician, otherwise he will not be able to solve his problems. Because…
T. DZYADKO: What is the political function of the mayor of Moscow?
G. YAVLINSKY: And politically, the function of the mayor of Moscow is to be trusted by the people and together with them he could change Moscow. This is his political function, like any meaningful politician in general in the world, be it the president of the country or be it the mayor of Moscow. He addresses people, he addresses you, or to me, or to our listeners, he says something, and a significant part of people believe what he says, and build their lives based on the fact that they are together something they create. Well, for example…
T. DZYADKO: Yes.
G. YAVLINSKY: … there, I don't know, the general plan of Moscow is being discussed, right? Or the question of how to solve the key problems of the city is being discussed: there, for example, there is an increase in prices in the city, or migrants in the city, or something else, something else. This means that the meaning of a politician is that he convinces people of one or another of his decisions and decides this together with them.
T. DZYADKO: Good. And if we talk about the political role of the mayor of Moscow in the life of the country, right? Because it is obvious that the mayor of Moscow is a person who, well, not exactly governs, it would be wrong to formulate it this way ... or, although no, he governs the city in which he lives, there, one tenth or one ... one tenth of the population …
G. YAVLINSKY: In general, many, many.
T. DZYADKO: … of the population of the Russian Federation, right? This is the capital. In other words, a person who now, after September 8 or, if there is a second round, not after the 8th, but later, becomes the head of Moscow, becomes the mayor, if this is not a candidate from the ruling party, then what function does he begin to play in the country? We see two candidates at least have a slogan whose main message, therefore, is that Moscow is only the beginning, from Moscow to Russia. How does this link work?
G. YAVLINSKY: Well, look, first of all, the point is that Moscow, of course, today plays a very exaggerated political role, it has a very exaggerated political significance in the country. Generally speaking, one can argue, unfortunately, that everything that happens in the country depends on what happens in Moscow. In this sense, from the leader ...
T. DZYADKO: It has always been like this with us, by and large.
G. YAVLINSKY: Yes, but Russia has never been a democratic country. And now we are talking about making it so, right? To make it modern. Maybe the word "democratic" is used too often, but what do we want to do? We want... I'll come back to this topic if I have time. I'll be in a bit of a hurry today because I have a lot to say. Moscow must become a competitive city, and therefore a modern one. This means that generations, new generations of people want to live in Moscow, so that they do not leave. This is a very difficult fundamental task. And for this, Moscow must become a modern city. Well, this is what we are talking about.
So, today it performs, well, absolutely hypertrophied political functions both as a capital and not only as a capital. I'll give you at least one question. Look, if we return the opportunity to Moscow so that public political organizations exist here freely, so that people have the opportunity to hold rallies, demonstrations freely, so that people can speak in various media, albeit Moscow, but freely, so that this city is truly democratic, as it is been there for at least a short period of time. This energy will be of great importance. If local self-government is returned to Moscow, if local self-government is shown how it works, if Moscow is returned to local self-government or given to it (it probably never even had this) financial functions, given to them so that they themselves can really start to decide some questions… It's a huge thing, 12 million people. If Moscow becomes an example that this is a city where laws are followed, this is a city where laws are the same for everyone, this is a city where a person feels protected, this is a city where property is not taken away, where there are rules that are not violated ...
T. DZYADKO: Is it possible for this to happen in Moscow, despite the fact that... so that it doesn’t happen, well, in the sense that property is not taken away, for example, in Moscow, despite the fact that this happens at the federal level? I don't know, in Yaroslavl, in Novosibirsk, in Lipetsk - anywhere.
G. YAVLINSKY: And this is very difficult to do. It is possible in the sense that it is possible to strive for this, it is possible for the mayor of Moscow to raise these questions. It is possible that the mayor of Moscow would submit such proposals to the federal level. It is possible that the mayor of Moscow will make these issues central to the discussion of the largest state issues. In this sense, he is a politician. He must bear them. What does the mayor say now? All is well, all is well. Well, and most of the candidates say that everything is fine, well, some just steal. Then others say, there, that there is something else there, I don’t even know what they are saying. Here. But the point is that the system must be changed in principle, and not only, of course, in Moscow, but starting from Moscow, relying on Moscow, on the opinion of Muscovites. Start raising these questions step by step, making them debatable, forcing them to change. Can you imagine what kind of figure if he was elected by the city of 12 million? This is a major political figure. A lot really depends on him. No, there will be no magic wand here, and I am against confrontation between the city authorities, city authorities and federal authorities, as well as against any confrontation. But without such a movement forward, nothing can be changed at all. And elections are precisely the definition of the person who will be able to do just that.
T. DZYADKO: Let's talk about elections and the definition of a person and return to the very beginning of this campaign. How do you explain to yourself the fact that the elections were called, that Sergei Sobyanin, therefore, announced that he was resigning early as mayor of Moscow and, accordingly, would take part in the election campaign? Why did this happen?
G. YAVLINSKY: Well, they just want the federal leadership, or, in other words, Vladimir Putin wants a more legitimate mayor of Moscow. Not just an official, but a person who, as it were, or actually elected by the citizens. Then it is easier to hold elections to the Moscow City Duma, here. In addition, our State Duma is something that its re-elections in general can not be announced today or tomorrow.
T. DZYADKO: Do you think that this could happen in the near future?
G. YAVLINSKY: I'm not counting anything, I'm telling you that this can easily happen. Just as you are now wondering why the election of the mayor of Moscow suddenly took place? In the same way, we may all be surprised by this. The collection of signatures for the dissolution of the Duma continues, and even the deputies of United Russia are participating in it. Yes. I wouldn't like to do... even though Medvedev told them to stop immediately! They all continue. Here. I don't want to draw very far-reaching conclusions from this, but I want to tell all Muscovites that elections, any elections, can happen very quickly. Because the system has a very low legitimacy. This is not a joke, the 2011 elections.
T. DZYADKO: If we evaluate these ... how much? Two months, yes, we have an election campaign going on? If you try to evaluate these two months from the point of view of their, on the one hand, the honesty of these two months, how the election campaign is going on, which, accordingly, in case of victory, in case of victory of the incumbent mayor, gives him some kind of legitimacy, you would like this appreciated?
G. YAVLINSKY: Well, what is there to evaluate? See how television works. Here is your answer. All. These are completely unequal conditions for anyone. One of the candidates, the acting mayor of Moscow, is present on all federal channels in an absolutely unlimited, I would say, number. All the other candidates, television for them - in my opinion, all the rest, or almost all the rest - for them, television is simply closed. They can get there through some grandiose scandals or something like that. That's all honesty for you. Well, there are some other things here: what is less removed from these elections, there, they don’t even take off for what needs to be removed ...
T. DZYADKO: For example, you were not registered in the elections of 12, but here the candidate from Yabloko is registered.
G. YAVLINSKY: That's what I'm saying, yes. Here I also speak, on these elections less remove. But we have filming all over the country. People are being filmed everywhere, absolute arbitrariness is taking place everywhere in terms of participation in elections. So, there is no need for any broad interpretations here, they just want to show victory in Moscow in a very triumphant way, because Moscow has the same political significance. That will be what will be done and will be ... But this does not negate anything in essence.
T. DZYADKO: Does it seem to you that this campaign is now completely under control? Or is the situation somehow developing on its own?
G. YAVLINSKY: Well, she has different episodes there...
T. DZYADKO: I am now talking about security, about political…
G. YAVLINSKY: She has different episodes there, there may be some surprises. Generally speaking, elections are such a thing that there can be even the most unexpected surprises. They can happen in general on the last day, a lot can change from one transmission. A lot can happen.
T. DZYADKO: What do you mean, for example?
G. YAVLINSKY: What do I mean? That people change their point of view. There are no particularly fixed views here. There is no such thing here that everything is somehow decided. In addition, secret voting is secret voting, in general, polls do not work very well there, which show us the result. I don't think there can be any revolutionary upheavals - I mean, actually in the voting, here. But this does not mean that they should be completely excluded. Here, everyone still needs to think carefully about who they will vote for, what they will do, what the principle of voting is. What will people vote for? What is the principle of voting?
T. DZYADKO: How would you answer this question?
G. YAVLINSKY: Well, here I am...
T. DZYADKO: What should be the principle of voting in Moscow in September 2013 during the mayoral elections?
G. YAVLINSKY: Yes. Here's what I would say, for example. I would say that let's think about what principle people will vote on. It seems to me that a very significant part of the people whom I would like to call for this in particular will vote on the basis of certain values, on the basis of certain ideas about what is good and what is bad. And in this sense, three completely different concepts are presented in the elections in Moscow today.
T. DZYADKO: Yes.
G. YAVLINSKY: Here. By the way, all three of them have such a serious fundamental rootedness. And they will accompany us, you, I assure you, until the presidential elections.
T. DZYADKO: And what are the concepts?
G. YAVLINSKY: Well, here's one concept - the concept of the interests of big capital. Right now, she still has some kind of ... nationalistic veil. And this is all that is connected with this direction. There, the end justifies the means. What big business did, or tried to do when it was created in the 90s.
T. DZYADKO: And which of the six candidates is the conductor of this concept?
G. YAVLINSKY: So I think that the representative of this direction, it is quite obvious, is Alexei Anatolyevich Navalny. There is another direction, there is another direction - this is Russia, a special path. This is a special way, so much so that even a person says that, in general, I am not a politician, not the mayor of Moscow, but just like that, here is the housekeeping ... I came here like that, to work out the housework, and that’s it. Here. This is a different direction. And there is a third way...
T. DZYADKO: You mean Sergei Semenovich.
G. YAVLINSKY: Yes, Sergei Semyonovich Sobyanin. And there is a third direction. The third direction in this sense, I would say, is human rights, the law is the same for everyone, property, the inviolability of property, freedom, democratic values - this is Sergei Sergeevich Mitrokhin. Here are three directions. So I can tell you where each of these directions leads. Someday you will remember our program.
T. DZYADKO: Come on.
G. YAVLINSKY: Here is the first direction, it leads to collapse, just to collapse.
T. DZYADKO: The collapse of what?
G. YAVLINSKY: Countries. It's a serious thing, yes.
T. DZYADKO: Why?
G. YAVLINSKY: As a result... that's because nationalism in our country in any form, in any form, is its end, as in Yugoslavia. In any form. It is categorically contraindicated in our country. And the topic that you can be a little Russophobe or, there, a little bit of some other anti-Semite or something else is a very frivolous topic, because there are no such boundaries. These are the boundaries, there are none. And by the way, Mitrokhin's position on this issue commands great respect, because it is very consistent and persistent. Here. This is a very serious thing.
The second direction, which, as I said, is a special path, it leads to an irreversible lag. This is slow, but quite definite and without any options for any lag in the future. Moscow will, like the country as a whole, simply lag behind more and more, and then its gap with the most developed countries will be simply insurmountable. And the third way is the European way, with all its problems, shortcomings, complexities, contradictions, difficulties, of course.
T. DZYADKO: Look, this second concept, in fact, was supported less ... how much? Less...more, more a little a year ago, in March, 60 percent supported the second concept across the country as a whole.
G. YAVLINSKY: Right. Explain why?
T. DZYADKO: Yes.
G. YAVLINSKY: There is no alternative. The country had no alternative. What did she have to choose from?
T. DZYADKO: That is, if there was… well, there was, for example… there was an alternative in the person of, I don’t know, Mikhail Prokhorov…
G. YAVLINSKY: Well, don't.
T. DZYADKO: … who scored only 20% in Moscow.
G. YAVLINSKY: Well, don't, it's...
T. DZYADKO: “Total” in the sense that it is not 60.
G. YAVLINSKY: But only admiring ladies can consider that Mikhail Prokhorov is an alternative in this sense. Otherwise, no serious person can consider a billionaire, a Russian billionaire with all his roots, an alternative to Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin. Well, how is it? This is what it is. Everyone who was in those elections represented Putin. Well, let's say Prokhorov is Putin and business, right? Zyuganov is Putin and foreign policy. Mironov is Putin and pensioners. Well, and so on. There was no one else there. What were people to do? They don't want it all to fall apart. They also need to live somewhere.
T. DZYADKO: That is, it seems to you that now, suddenly, when they see new names on the ballots, when they come to the polling stations on the 8th, people will slap their foreheads and say: bah, so here it is, the alternative, appeared. And immediately everyone will vote not for the course they voted for in March 2012.
G. YAVLINSKY: I don't know, but we need to take the first steps. Well, don’t be like that… don’t think that there must be some kind of magic. We must take the first steps, we must start with something, we must fight for it. Sergei Mitrokhin is actively fighting for this. I really came to you today about this, as you know very well, to agitate for him. By the way, I've never done this in my life. Now I think this is very important.
T. DZYADKO: Why now?
G. YAVLINSKY: Because a very long cycle is beginning, in these elections. Now there will be elections of the mayor, in a year elections ...
T. DZYADKO: ... to the Moscow City Duma.
G. YAVLINSKY: ... to the Moscow City Duma. Then, you see, there will be elections to the State Duma, and then presidential elections. Only then it will be too late to cry that we have no one, there is no alternative, and Vladimir Vladimirovich will once again take 75%.
T. DZYADKO: And what do you think, in general, if we talk about the cycle, there are, again ... you can often see comments in some, that means, analytical notes or on social networks, that, they say, the election of the mayor of Moscow is the last chance, last chance for change, last chance for some shifts and so on.
G. YAVLINSKY: Listen, Russia has existed for many years...
T. DZYADKO: A lot.
G. YAVLINSKY: Guess how much, right? Lots of. She doesn't have a last chance. She has gone through such that she does not have any last chances. It's just that people need to behave smartly and understand that the last chance does not mean that you need to do whatever you want, but you need to do what is right. You need to vote for what corresponds to your views and not succumb to any hysterical generalizations. Well, for example, as we had. So, everyone now understands that the recommendation “vote for anyone except United Russia”, it led to that ...
T. DZYADKO: You mean the parliamentary elections of the 11th year.
G. YAVLINSKY: Yes, I mean the parliamentary elections on the 11th. It led to the fact that all people lost the State Duma, which would protect their interests for real. Well, those who voted for A Just Russia understand that they made a mistake. Well, that's understandable, obviously.
T. DZYADKO: Tell me, but do you think that if everyone voted for the Yabloko party, then the Yabloko party would have received the scale of falsifications that we observed, would it have received the result that it would have in real life?
G. YAVLINSKY: I... well, the way you put the question, she would not get the result she would get in real life, but she would get a great result. And this would provide a certain step forward, and a breakthrough, and representation. There would have been at least one faction that would have left the courtroom under such laws as have been adopted there lately, as we have already done. There would have been at least a faction that would have said: the falsifications were of such a scale that this State Duma should be dissolved. /To be continued/
