Ksenia Sobchak interview in the rain. "What are you carrying?"

Ksenia Sobchak's guest is politician, Russian presidential candidate Alexei Navalny, who answered questions about his political program, the problem of Crimea, Chechnya, taxes, abortion, LGBT marriages and much more. He talked about whether he is afraid of the collapse of the system when there is a change of power, why he does not think about the possibility of becoming a victim of a political assassination, and how he feels about Vladimir Putin.

Alexey Navalny believes that “there is no simple solution to the Crimean problem”; a second referendum needs to be held on the peninsula. The oppositionist does not recognize the first referendum, and, in his opinion, the world does not recognize the second either, but it is important to give people the opportunity to express their will. Navalny does not believe that the problems of Donbass are related to Crimea; to solve them, it is necessary to implement the Russian part of the Minsk agreements, withdraw troops and hand over the border, which is what the oppositionist plans to do if he becomes president.

Navalny is also going to equalize subsidies to the regions, despite the difficulties in some of them. So, speaking about Chechnya, the country pays “colossal amounts of money, but receives neither peace of mind nor the absence of terrorist attacks and militants.” In economic matters, the oppositionist puts among his main tasks the reduction of the part controlled by the state, since this blocks its development. In addition, Navalny opposes the ban on abortion, plans to issue permits for short-barreled weapons, does not see any problems in legalizing LGBT marriages, but believes that this should be decided by referendums in each subject of the federation.

What will happen to the system if he comes to power? Alexey does not believe that changing the system will lead to a collapse, as in 1991, since then the price of oil fell, and now the country receives “a lot of money.” Navalny believes that at this stage, his admission or non-admission to the presidential elections in 2018 no longer depends on Putin, but on whether he can unite enough people to “put pressure on the authorities and force” them to allow him.

Full transcript of the program:

Glad you're in the studio. Today we have an open broadcast, a live broadcast, I hope that we will have an interesting conversation with you. Alexey, the first question is related to the complex process of arranging for this interview. For several months now, you have been refusing not only me, but many other journalists any communication, always answering the same thing: if you want to know something, look at the blog. What is the reason for this position? Why are you suddenly...?

Ksenia, do you want me to reveal all the secrets of our agreements? “I'm in Bali and I can't. I went to Bhutan, I can’t.” When you have two days a month to conduct interviews, they sometimes end up at some of my events, especially since I now travel to the regions almost all day long. I will now return home, literally take my bag and go to Perm, from Perm I will go to Izhevsk. I'm on an election campaign, which means my schedule is pretty busy.

But for many journalists, if they are willing to show some interest in my campaign, they can go to these cities and interview me. We have now opened 44 headquarters to date. This means that I myself attended the opening of probably 35 or 36 headquarters, and in each place, in each city, I gave a press conference and gave several individual interviews. And in that sense, I try to ensure that we meet the standard of the most transparent election campaign, and I communicate with journalists as much as I can.

But there’s just a feeling, I’m not just talking about myself, although if we really restore those events, exactly in that week when all the events happened...

When did you go to Bhutan and couldn't interview me?

No, when you wrote a letter to Vaino, it was precisely on those hot events. You somehow went off the radar and were impossible to reach. And it is clear that a little later it was possible to arrange an interview, because, accordingly, the situation began to change, and those events began to be forgotten. But it was strange that not only to me, but to many journalists during that period - a period when this letter really raised many questions - for some reason you for some time...

I would like the journalistic community to somehow act together, or something, because it was a busy time, I needed to have surgery on my eye, I had it, so I couldn’t give interviews. Then, as soon as I returned and recovered, I traveled to the regions. Since then, I repeat, I have given several press conferences and given several individual interviews. If you came for me to Saransk, Voronezh or somewhere...

By the way, I hope that I will have such an opportunity, I already told you on air, I will be happy to go. But, despite the fact that at the moment this is probably not the most relevant topic, in order to finish it, I would still like to get an explanation. I know that a huge number of your zealous fans were surprised and shocked by this letter and these...

What letter?

Vaino about leaving. In general, this is such a topic, let’s say, on the one hand, I understand that we all live in a certain reality in which connections with the presidential administration are necessary, and on the other hand, when the person who personifies this “don’t believe, don’t be afraid, don’t ask,” writes such a letter, even for a respectful and understandable reason, of course, for many people this immediately causes a new wave of all this, that Navalny is working with the administration and so on.

Now we will explain everything to everyone. The peculiarity of my work is that the Anti-Corruption Foundation and I write letters all day long. I write them to Chaika, I write them to Bastrykin, I write them to Putin, because we are investigating corruption, and we handle formal letters all day long.

But not with personal requests.

I didn't have any personal request. These are two different things. For many years they have completely illegally refused to give me a foreign passport; they have not given me one. I went to court twice, my complaint is in the European Court of Human Rights, and everything I did in this sense, without seeing any of these people, in particular Vaino, I never saw in person, I wrote a letter that I demand so that they would give me a foreign passport, because I need to go to have an operation. And I indicated that my complaint is with the ECHR, they are not extraditing me illegally. According to the laws of the Russian Federation, I should have been given this passport and they gave it to me. I don’t know why, what worked there inside the presidential administration, but this is definitely not the situation when I made some kind of personal request, and as an exception they did something to me. My legal rights, which had been trampled on for many years, were simply restored.

Vaino doesn’t deal with passports. We all understand that he is Putin’s confidant, a person very close to the president. We all understand that this is a person, that is, you are practically writing to Putin, and it is clear that these issues are resolved conceptually.

I understand perfectly well that they didn’t give me a passport for many years because they didn’t want to give it to me.

Was it worth asking him conceptually? Have you really not weighed the risks?

No, I demanded it. What are the risks? There are no risks. I, once again, I demanded this passport.

Alexey, you are a very careful politician. You know how everything can always be used against you. Didn’t you understand that they, of course, would publish this letter?

Ksenia, a lot of things can be used against me, including this interview. I’m talking to the famous liberal Sobchak, and they are all so terrible.

Aren't you a liberal?

I'm just saying what can be said. Any things can be distorted. Demanding the fulfillment of your rights is not a request at all. I demanded that they give me a passport. They gave it to me.

But you didn’t write to the passport office, Alexey, you wrote to Vaino.

I wrote to the passport office. Once again, when I demand that Medvedev be dismissed and that corruption be investigated, I write to Putin, and to the Investigative Committee, and to the Prosecutor General’s Office, and wherever. And here I filed an official complaint to the court, to the European Court, and took the application to the migration center.

And at the same time I wrote to Putin on the concept.

And at the same time I wrote to the Commissioner for Human Rights, and he already asked me to write to Vaino. I sent an email with the same content that I had been attacked, I demanded that they stop violating my rights and give me my international passport, and they gave it to me. Maybe they'll take it away tomorrow, I don't know.

I was simply surprised by this precisely from the point of view of the fact that in general you are a very cautious person, and this is such an obvious thing. Do you regret it now?

Of course not. This has no contradiction with the fact that I am a cautious person. It seems to me that this is some kind of strange epithet, I am a normal person, I am a prudent person, I know what I am entitled to by law, I demand it. Nothing happened here that was a departure from my principles.

Did you have any informal meetings with anyone from the presidential administration, Vaino or someone else?

I have never seen any of them in my life. I saw that Fedotov, who is the Commissioner for Human Rights, can be considered, he is also formally an employee of the administration. I saw him, I met him on the radio, I met with him, but among those who are officials of the presidential administration, I have never seen them.

We'll talk about this later. Let's go back...

... we talked.

What?

Sorry. We haven't talked enough now.

No, that’s enough about the situation with the passport, but about the situation of who you communicate with and where, I would like to return to this, if you don’t mind.

Very interesting.

But now I would like to talk, in general, about your fans and your fans' strategy for protecting you. It seems to me that this strategy is still connected with your position.

Well, please explain to me, what are my fans?

Look, there are people who support you unconditionally, and this is what, probably, any politician calls the nuclear electorate. This is a normal political science story, when a person has one, for a rock star it would be his fans, for the politician Alexei Navalny these are his nuclear voters who vote for Alexei Navalny no matter what. Such people are the core of your electorate, you cannot but know about it.

Then there is a more complex story of people who can sometimes vote for you, sometimes they cannot, you can disappoint them, upset them, you will not speak out about Crimea or about gays, and now their position has already begun to waver a little. Here Akunin wrote something, then he spoke out something else. I want to talk about this kernel. Look, these people are called differently, those who don’t love them call them navalnyats, Navalny’s minions and other offensive words, I wouldn’t want to call them that, I’ll call them the core of the electorate.

You have already repeated all this nonsense. Let me stop you right away, okay? There is no such nuclear electorate. And this whole, as you say, political science story, I therefore urge all political scientists, of course, to be thrown into a cage with wild animals in the zoo, because you are repeating a set of some cliches: people are ready to vote for you, regardless of how you change your views. Of course not, I have people who are probably my loyal supporters, and I, in turn, am their reliable political partner, but they support me for a set of political demands. If I stop fighting corruption tomorrow, of course, they will not vote for me.

This is where I would like to come. Look, there is a certain trend that scares not only me, but many people, who at the same time are people who support you, that as soon as any thinking person, be it me or some writer, or a creative person, or just... .

Who? For example, who?

For example, Akunin or, for example, Bykov, or someone else. As soon as this person writes something, not necessarily critical, but something, in general, some kind of reflection...

Yes, Bykov didn’t write anything, or Akunin didn’t write anything, they didn’t write anything.

Well, Akunin or Lev Shlosberg also wrote something in their time.

I argued with these people, please excuse me.

Wait a second. Under these posts, a huge number of accusations immediately appear that all this was paid for by the Kremlin, any criticism of Alexei Navalny means that the Murzilians immediately went into battle, and so on. To be honest, this worries me. There is Lev Shlosberg, he spoke out, you ask for a specific example, I will say, he spoke out about your program. A man whom many respect and, in general, many consider a worthy person. He said some unpleasant words about you, I can quote them.

Please quote.

Let me quote you now: “He is not a democrat or a liberal, he is simply trying to accumulate any kind of protest electorate - from nationalists to communists, from liberals to yesterday’s supporters of United Russia, LDPR, Zyuganov, anyone. No economic program or political reforms are needed,” Schlosberg said. You can now look at this speech of his in a conversation with a journalist from “Echo of Moscow” on the “Echo of Moscow” website, either some thoughtful comments, or directly from your nuclear electorate accusations that he is a Murzilka, that this was paid for by the Kremlin interview, and immediately instead of some constructive discussion of these words, some kind of very harsh story of attacks. Why is this happening and what can you answer Lev Shlosberg?

People have their own opinions. I am absolutely normal about criticism, I enter into discussion with all people. As you can see, I am at the interview with you and ready to answer all your pressing and uncomfortable questions. And, I repeat, I try to be one of the most accessible politicians to the press. At every meeting in every city, I answer absolutely all questions. You raise your hand - I answer, you raise your hand - I answer.

There are many questions that politicians don't always want to answer, but I answer them anyway. There are people who appreciate it, there are people who support me, and they have their own opinions. When Schlosberg, whom I have a good opinion of, says what you repeated, I, along with people in the comments, can come and write: “What you said is stupid, Schlosberg.” He simply said realistically, objectively, which I think is stupid.

Let's walk through this stupidity.

Let's take a walk, yes, let's.

He accuses you specifically of not having an economic program and, in general, of not having a clear platform. Let's go through it in order. Actually, for example, healthcare costs must double, in your opinion, in order to provide the required level of medical services. Why double, why not 20%, not 40%? Have you done economic research on this topic?

Ksenia, have you read my program?

I watched it, yes, of course. This is from your site.

Have you read or watched it? From our website. Both on our website and in my speeches, I point out everywhere that we must double funding for health care and education, too, by about two times, based on...

Why at two, why not at four?

I answer you. Because there are countries of the Economic Cooperation Organization. That is, roughly speaking, there are rich countries, and when we look at how much these rich countries spend as a percentage of GDP on health care and education, we see that our health care and education are underfunded.

Do you know how much Russia now spends as a percentage of GDP on healthcare?

I know, Ksenia, that’s it, I’m very good with numbers.

How many?

This is the same question: consolidated budget, federal budget. We'll leave now...

How much, wait, of Russia's consolidated GDP?

Consolidated federal budget. Tell me how much. We are talking about specific numbers.

Consolidated or federal?

Consolidated how much of GDP?

Ksenia, let's do it again. We are now talking about specific provisions of my program, and these specific provisions of my program grow from the experience of developed countries. This experience of developed countries suggests that education, healthcare...

Wait, Alexey, I’ll tell you this number now, and you’ll just remember it, because you’re doing...

Tell me the number. I know her. Because what you are doing now, trying to catch me on some figure, suggests that, in principle, unfortunately, you do not understand how the budget works, how the federal differs from the consolidated one. Tell me how is it different?

Wait, but there is a GDP figure for healthcare. That is, you say that it needs to be doubled. I’m talking about this and asking you, I’m not a politician in this sense and, of course, I was specially preparing just for our broadcast, but it seems to me that if you say that you want to raise it twice, you should know. This is 3.6% of GDP currently spent on healthcare. It seems to me that if you propose to raise it, you should know it.

Of course I know her.

For example, what is your indicator of success in the healthcare field?

An indicator of success in healthcare is, of course, life expectancy, the detection of diseases, the overall satisfaction of people with the services provided, a set of various criteria and indicators that show all this. But the most important thing we talk about in the program is that it is basically impossible to achieve anything if healthcare is underfunded in principle. Therefore, we need to give more money there and continue to carry out reforms inside. If we now pay a doctor’s salary 14 thousand rubles, 8 thousand rubles, then nothing will work, no reform will work. That’s why we say that the military-police budget needs to be reduced, and healthcare costs, in particular, increased.

Look, many experts, discussing how to develop the Russian economy and how to build its budget, say that social spending in Russia is greatly inflated.

Which experts say this?

Quite a lot of experts.

What experts? Call me, tell me.

When we were preparing for this program, we talked to a number of people.

Ksenia, that’s the point, this is from the series: tell me the percentage. Call me an expert. There are no such experts.

There is, for example, me now, Ovchan, Kudrin, Oreshkin.

Who's who first?

Sheep.

You probably mean Movchan.

Morchan, yes.

Morchan, Ovchan or Movchan?

I say again: Movchan.

Movchan. There is one, but Kudrin, for example, your favorite, says that we actually need to increase spending on healthcare and education. He simply offers a 1.6x increase.

But Kudrin says that we still have an inflated social budget.

He doesn't say this. It’s not bloated with us, that’s the point, it’s not bloated at all. Our military-police budget is inflated. Russia, despite the fact that it declares itself to be a social state, is a military-police state, and our military-police part of the budget has eaten up absolutely everything.

Okay, but at the same time, in your program, which I read on your website, you write that police officers should receive a decent salary. On the one hand, you propose to take away this budget from them, do I understand you correctly, are you talking about this now?

No, you misunderstand me. I'll explain everything to you now. We have a truly gigantic military-police budget. The share of direct wage costs there is quite low. A huge amount of money is simply stolen there. In particular, in government orders, and these are not my words, but the words of the Accounts Chamber, that every fourth ruble is cashed out there almost immediately. We can, by reducing the military-police budget, raise the share of wages within it and pay even a little more, but at the same time transfer part of the costs to health care and education to investments in human capital.

We understand the platform of Yabloko or the Communist Party of the Russian Federation. You may like it or not, but it’s some kind of big...

Please describe her. You don't understand anything. You do not understand either the Yabloko platform or the platform of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation. Why did I say Schlosberg.

No, wait, why?

Let me finish, an important idea. Why did I say that Schlosberg said something stupid when he said that I don’t have an economic program? Because, unfortunately, there are some people who continue to exploit something from 1989 or 1990. Yabloko once had a “500 days” program, I am a former member of the Yabloko party, I also liked it, and that’s why they have an economic program, they have some economists. And we know something about the Communist Party of the Russian Federation. In fact, we don’t know anything about them, and they have absolutely no program. What we offer is precisely a program based on specific numbers.

No, let’s do this: can we say for sure about their program that it is leftist? Can this be said?

The Communist Party of the Russian Federation, the communists have a leftist program.

No. She is leftist in the social sense.

Progressive tax. Yes, of course, she is absolutely in this sense...

It is left-wing in the social sense, but from a socio-political point of view, it is certainly a right-wing conservative program. What leftist program?

In what ways is she right-wing conservative?

The role of the church, the role of the state - of course, this is a right-wing conservative program.

Fine. Where are you, I just want to understand, where are you on this flank? Because I read your program, many things are clear to me, many, unfortunately, for me as well, but this is probably because I don’t understand anything, they sound like toast. But you understand that these are some kind of slogans. I would like to understand: who are you - are you right, are you left? Can you identify yourself somehow?

In Russian political science and practical politics there are neither right nor left. You say: right, left, apparently implying that Yabloko is the right, and the communists are the left? Moreover, Yabloko, of course, is not a right-wing party, it is a left-liberal party. Liberals should generally be leftists. The communists, our domestic communists, from the left, I don’t know what’s left. They talk about free education and healthcare.

Okay, no need to talk about them. Where are you in this, conditionally, political science line?

So there is no political science line; it does not exist in Russia.

How does it not exist? That is, it exists all over the world, but we again have a kind of special state.

In the world, it is possible to distinguish Republicans from Democrats in the United States by a set of certain issues. It is possible to distinguish a Christian democrat from a social democrat in Europe, but in Russia it is absolutely not possible. In Russia there are parties controlled by the Kremlin, and there are independent ones, that’s all.

You are independent, we, thank God, have decided on this. Tell us about yourself so we can understand. You say you can't decide on the ruler. But the basic question is: who are you? Do you criticize the authorities on the right or the left? In what ways are you a left-wing liberal, in what ways are you a right-wing conservative? Describe. Let's go in order.

This is not subject to any description, it is not necessary.

Fine. What should the retirement age be? Do we really need to change things in Russia, raise the retirement age?

I believe that at present there is no need to raise the retirement age - this is the first thing. Second: in fact, this is impossible, because people by retirement age are already 30% disabled. If we raise the retirement age, they will file for disability even more. And most importantly, they simply do not survive. Our men do not live up to retirement age. The problem of the Pension Fund...

What is the average age of our men in Russia?

Average life expectancy?

Average life expectancy.

Depending on the regions. But the actual life expectancy of men is less than 65 years, of course. They simply will not live to see retirement. And the problem of the Pension Fund is not solved by increasing the retirement age, but is solved by taking the money where it is: from oil and gas workers, they don’t pay extra taxes, they don’t pay extra dividends. You need to take it from there.

This is what the communists say, at this particular point it is the absolute communist agenda - take and divide.

How to take and divide this?

How? They say the same thing. We need now, in fact, to take this money and spend it on education.

It's good that you called me for this interview. Now we are all your cliches that are in your head, we are now eliminating them.

Let's have fun.

This is not a matter of taking and dividing, this is a normal taxation system that exists in all countries.

That is, 70% taxes?

What 70? Why did you even get 70%?

Don't know. How much to be enough for pensioners, of whom there are more and more every year?

If you look at how many dividends per barrel of oil Rosneft pays, you will see that it is ridiculous money. For example, Bashneft, before it was absorbed by Rosneft, paid much higher prices. Our oil workers are underpaying the budget and underpaying dividends.

Do I understand correctly that this money will be enough for pensioners throughout the country according to Alexei Navalny?

The money from correct, fair taxation of the raw materials sector will be enough to provide for the Pension Fund without raising the retirement age, there is no need for this.

Can I ask you now? I answered your question, where did you place me: to the right or to the left?

Now, of course, to the left.

Why to the left? Normal taxation.

For this position. No, wait, tax increases. Let's do this: from today's starting point, people who are in favor of raising taxes, in principle, are always on the left flank. We are talking about today's point.

Firstly, I just talked about increasing dividends. And the people who are in favor of paying more dividends, are they on the right in your terminology?

Let's try today, I would like to dedicate our interview to this, because I really find it very interesting, I am also your potential voter - identification, where is Alexei Navalny? I studied political science, consider it important to me personally. Let's move on to foreign policy.

But I think that you studied political science, throw everything out of your head, you shouldn’t have studied it, you should have taken some other course.

Fine. We'll talk about this later. Look, in due time...

No, Ksenia, I will be happy to answer your specific questions. I'm glad you asked. But this whole line is political science, it is not applicable in Russia.

I don't agree with this. I believe that it is applicable, and, in general, I understand, by voting for the communists, that they are always left-wing, always for raising taxes.

Is United Russia left or right?

Centrist for today. This is the party of the center today.

Centrist relative to whom? Why? She is similarly opposed to raising the retirement age.

Listen, let’s do this: I’m not going to become president yet, I’m interested in studying you, really. Let's move on to foreign policy. At one time in 2008, you called for recognition of the independence of Abkhazia and Ossetia. Is that right?

Transnistria.

And Transnistria, and Abkhazia, and Ossetia. If you want, I can quote it, but it’s enough for me that...

Yes Yes Yes. Of course, this was the manifesto of the “People” movement; I believed that independence should be recognized.

Yes, you wanted to recognize independence. At the same time, in general, when in Crimea Putin did what you, in general, called for in Abkhazia and Ossetia, you were initially against it. You even proposed firing cruise missiles at the General Staff, remember that.

It was not about Crimea, it was probably about Georgia, of course.

You yourself answered your own question by saying the phrase: for some reason the situation was different. Because the situation was different. Abkhazia and South Ossetia are regions that initially, since the collapse of the Soviet Union, declared secession; there were bloody events in both Tskhinvali and Sukhumi. There was actually a war there.

Do you know the history of Crimea?

And what?

And as far as I know the history of Crimea, there was no real violence there either in the 90s or in the 2000s. Therefore, these are incomparable things.

Yuri Meshkov - do you know such a person?

President of Crimea.

Who announced that Crimea is part of Russia.

In the 90s. How? This happened in the 90s. He was elected by the people of Crimea. I'm saying that there were the same processes as in Ossetia.

Not the same ones. Yes, it is impossible to compare Abkhazia, where there was a war, and which was actually independent of Georgia for many, many years, and is now independent. It is impossible to compare Transnistria, which has actually been independent of Moldova for many, many years. It is impossible to compare with Crimea and Ukraine. All these events...

Listen, it’s good that there was no war in Crimea, but there was also the same process when they wanted, in general, to speak out for their independence.

Process and war are two different things. Process and real independence are two different things. Therefore, we can discuss all this, and we will discuss it, I just urge you to the fact that it is impossible to compare and separate it with a comma: Abkhazia, Ossetia, Crimea, Transnistria - these are different situations, completely different.

Fine. On the one hand, you are saying that Crimea will never become part of Ukraine in the foreseeable future, and now you are saying that, in principle, it is necessary to hold a second referendum. In this regard, I would like to ask: do you seriously think that Ukraine will allow this second referendum if Crimea is annexed? How do you imagine this?

I'm not saying this from one side or the other. I'm talking all on one side. I'm being realistic. I know that many in Ukraine do not like my words, many in Russia do not like my words, but I say it as it is. Realistically, we see that in the foreseeable future, of course, Crimea will not be recognized by anyone, but in fact will remain part of the Russian Federation.

So what should I do?

What can we do here? What should any fine, any president do? He must announce another normal, or rather, not another, but the first normal, honest referendum, which Ukraine, of course, will not recognize with a high degree of probability, we understand this.

What for?

Because it needs to be carried out.

But if Ukraine still doesn’t recognize it, let’s do it at least four times.

Here the question is not in Ukraine or in Russia, but the question is in the real expression of the will of the residents of Crimea, which must be determined in reality, and not as it was.

So now you don’t trust the residents of Crimea?

I trust the residents.

Referendum.

And the referendum that took place was, of course, an obvious fake. We need to hold a normal referendum - this is the first thing. And secondly, and I also say this absolutely honestly...

Wait. Why, if no one recognizes him, what’s the point? Just to assuage your own conscience that people actually cast their ballots?

This is not called appeasing one’s own conscience, but this is called recording the real expression of the will of people. They are real people, I, unlike you, believe that we should know their real opinion, that they should come and vote in a real referendum, and we will see the results.

What will this change? Ukraine does not recognize this. What happens next?

Great. We are having the same discussion regarding Putin: why do we need these elections, it won’t change anything, he has 84%. This is from the same series.

Lesh, don't change the topic. What does Putin have to do with it? Are we returning Crimea or not?

What kind of strange, impossible formulation of the question is this? Once again, I answered this question. First: there is no simple solution. Second: apparently, there is no solution at all, just as there is no solution to any territorial conflict on planet Earth in recent years. Tell me a conflict that was resolved successfully. No, no. Even among civilized countries there is practically no precedent when a territorial conflict has been resolved, and here it will not be resolved in the foreseeable future.

Look, I'll tell you honestly. I can just...

I hope you will tell me honestly.

I want to understand: you are a smart politician, already very experienced. You yourself understand that in politics, especially when it comes to millions of voters who must vote, independently, on the right, on the left, from the center, on the side, a pure position that is understandable to people always wins. They're watching you now...

Did they teach you this at MGIMO, Ksenia?

No. Some simple voter without a higher education is watching you, and you have now said a lot of words about Crimea, but for or against it has not become particularly clear to anyone. It turns out Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin, your competitor, and he, everything is clear with him. He says: “I am for Crimea, this is my main victory, and in general I even want elections on the day of the annexation of Crimea, because this is the main achievement of my president.” The late Nemtsov came out and immediately gave a very simple answer to this question, I remember this well.

This is wrong.

But I can also give you many of his quotes when he said that Crimea should be returned to Ukraine. Also, many people didn’t like him for this, but he said this, but let me tell you, let the editor bring it now, I personally read these interviews and remember this. Do you have any clear, unambiguous position?

Who told you this? At MGIMO, at the Faculty of Political Science, they taught you everything that was wrong. You think people are stupid. What you just said, you say: “Any person, he understands absolutely nothing.” There are things that cannot be said simply “yes” or simply “no”. There are complicated things, well, that means I’m such a politician. I'm the kind of politician who tells it like it is. I am telling the honest truth that there is no simple solution to the Crimean problem. No, he's not there.

Fine. Let's then, since you understand this better, and political science is nonsense, let's talk about Ukraine. Donbass. How can we even resolve this problem if we don’t return Crimea? How do you imagine that?

These are unrelated problems.

Donbass and Crimea - unrelated problems?

What is the problem of Donbass? There is a war going on there, and in order to resolve the problem of Donbass and the eastern part of Ukraine, you need to do what was signed by your friend Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin, start by implementing the Minsk agreements, this needs to be done.

How will we get closer to the world until this is done?

We are not getting closer, and it is impossible to get closer to him, to a significant part of the world...

But without giving back Crimea, this is impossible, without support in Donbass and without giving back Crimea.

Fine. Let's now mix in Northern Cyprus and the Falkland Islands, and connect the problem of them all. This is not actually the case.

Forgive me, my editor is now telling me: “If I were president, Crimea would become Ukrainian,” Boris Nemtsov said on the Inter TV channel, just to end our conversation.

On the air of the Ukrainian channel. On the air of the Russian channel, Borya said different things. Doesn't matter. I am not here to discuss Nemtsov, but to talk about my position. As I already said, the problem of Crimea has no solution in the foreseeable future; it will not be recognized as part of Russia by many countries.

It's clear. How will you negotiate with an ungovernable Ukraine, how will you negotiate with Europe without giving up Crimea? So you are the president tomorrow - how?

But certainly not by the methods of wonderful video messages from the Dozhd TV channel to President Poroshenko. I will do what Putin...

Listen, why are you talking about me again, we’re talking about you. You are going to become president, not me.

But I try to say something that is clear and familiar to you.

So tell me how. You are trying to offend me now, but I am trying to sincerely learn your program.

No. If you thought so, I apologize, Ksenia. I will implement the Minsk agreements. The world demands them to be fulfilled from us, Ukraine demands them to be fulfilled, and they are also demanded to be fulfilled...

Ukraine does not comply with them. How will you accomplish them?

I will fulfill the Russian part of the Minsk agreements and transfer control of the border. I will implement the Minsk agreements.

What is it, the Russian part of the Minsk agreements?

First of all, the withdrawal of troops and the transfer of border control...

Are our troops there?

Of course, our troops are there. Of course, there are armed groups there that directly support Russia; this has been admitted many times, including by the leaders of these unrecognized republics. They say outright that without Russian support, without Russian troops, they cannot fight. What do you think, please tell me, Ksenia, who pays pensions now? Who pays the salaries there?

No, we are now... Russia, of course.

Of course, KAMAZ trucks leave with money.

No, we're talking about simple wording.

There are Minsk agreements, they have been signed - the first and second. They need to be completed and start from there. And with this, I hope, the normalization of relations with Ukraine will begin. But at the same time, you need to understand that perhaps this is the main crime that Putin committed against the future of Russia - that we have found in Ukraine a hostile state, simply a hostile state, where there are 40 million people who are hostile to Russia and will treat us this way for many years to come.

That's the point. What then to do with those people who experienced great difficulties and, in general, are still experiencing these difficulties in the Donbass? What to do with them? They are there now, they support what is happening there now, they don’t want to go to Ukraine. What to do with them? They believe in their Russian world and want it to happen.

There are different people there.

But there are definitely such people there, you must agree.

Of course there are, there are different people there. It must be said that some of them, most of them, so that they were not subjected, all of them were not subjected to some kind of illegal repression. So that there is some kind of amnesty, so that they have guarantees.

Will you stop the nationalists?

What nationalists?

Which exist in Ukraine, the so-called national battalions.

Implementation of the Minsk agreements is not a thing that we will do tomorrow and they will be fulfilled. Naturally, there must be international control, there must be an international peacekeeping contingent, mechanisms are needed that will avoid massacres and revenge on both sides. And, in general, this happens quite often in international conflicts. For this there are blue helmets, there are European troops, various types of formations exist, and humanity has quite a lot of experience in applying such measures. Therefore, I’m not talking about the fact that I signed the Minsk agreements - heaven has come on earth. A complex procedure will begin, everyone will violate the truce, everyone will blame each other, there will be propaganda. War is war, but nevertheless this process can only begin by implementing the Minsk agreements.

We have already discussed foreign policy. Everything turned out to be quite easy there, fulfilling the Minsk agreements, everything.

Everything is very difficult, just now it was very difficult.

But it's very easy on your part.

No, I said that this is all very, very difficult, unfortunately.

Fine. Let's return to domestic politics, there are also a lot of interesting things there. For example, you write that “Russia needs a visa regime with Central Asia and the countries of Transcaucasia. Labor migrants should come on work visas, and not uncontrollably, as now” - also from your website. “Exactly at 7:00 the Chuchmeks (this is your quote) are just pounding some pieces of iron with sledgehammers with some kind of hellish roar, they’re walking in circles all the way around tea in a mug.” Probably, many of your electorate will agree with the definition of “Chuchmeks,” but for a person aspiring to the role of President of Russia, these are words that should remain somewhere in the distant past. Do you now understand that it was a bit harsh and, probably, too emotional?

What year is this post? This post, as far as I remember, is quoted to me quite often in similar questions, I think, 2005-2007, and it concerned the fact that some people are banging on my door and don’t let me sleep. Of course, this is a thing of the past. This is probably the word...

But do you still support the visa regime?

Of course, absolutely 100% yes, Russia needs a visa regime with the countries of Central Asia and the Caucasus - this is the most important point of our program.

Listen, but your position on Chechnya is also known, on this...

Come on, tell me what my position is known for?

So how? You have spoken out many times, I don’t know whether this position has changed now or not, but from what I remember, you spoke about the need to stop these uncontrolled subsidies, to stop such a huge flow of money into the region. And, in general, your critics said that yes, people probably like it, from the point of view of populism, of course, everyone likes this idea - not to give extra money. But from the point of view of real politics, in essence, this is the relationship of any center of the empire with its vassal outskirts, because with this money we seem to be plaguing the conflicts that could exist in Moscow.

But tell me, please, why aren’t we begging for anything in Magadan or in the Smolensk region, or in the Kursk region?

Quieter regions, we haven’t fought like we did with Chechnya for so many centuries.

Great. That is, let us give even where we are being blackmailed, and in general it is still unclear who is fighting with whom, let us give uncontrollably. Sorry, I will strongly disagree with you here. There is no populism here, there is a sober, pragmatic calculation and a requirement to comply with the law. I really believe that money should be distributed more evenly among the constituent entities of the Russian Federation. Yes, of course, there are difficulties in the Caucasian republics. By the way, there are more in Dagestan than in Chechnya now. But when I see photographs of Grozny, and it looks like the wonderful city that is behind you, glowing skyscrapers, and I come to any city in the central part of Russia, and I just see destroyed buildings, potholes, come to some Nizhny Novgorod... .

But maybe this is the price of the absence of terrorist attacks? Aren't you afraid that tomorrow you will stop giving these subsidies to Chechnya, being the president, and the day after tomorrow, in general, all these sensible guys from Ramzan Kadyrov will come here and terrorist attacks will begin in Moscow?

I want to remind you that a terrible terrorist attack recently took place in your hometown, and that terrorist attacks happen all the time in Chechnya. Not so long ago we saw tanks firing at the House of Press, it was recently...

But are you ready to take on these risks in even greater quantities?

What are the risks? Once again, now, right now, this is a more irrelevant conversation about the fact that we allegedly bought peace of mind with huge amounts of money. Isn’t it you, excuse me that I again remember your appeal to various presidents, weren’t you the one who appealed to President Lukashenko not to hand over the young Chechen because he would be killed or stabbed to death or, I don’t know, what they would do to him in Chechnya. We pay colossal amounts of money and get neither peace of mind, nor the absence of terrorist attacks, nor normal government. So we need to stop talking about it. Stop it. All this tribute that is being paid has been paid for some unknown reason for several years now.

Okay, another question about domestic politics. Let me remind you, we are determining whether Alexei Navalny’s policy is right or left. For some reason he still doesn’t know.

I know everything about myself.

Well, define who you are - a right-wing liberal, I don’t know, a social democrat, maybe you used to call yourself a national democrat.

Let me tell you that I am a centrist. Will this solve your problems?

The centrist is United Russia.

Well, no, of course, what centrists they are.

Putin is a centrist here. That is, you are like Putin.

What kind of centrist is he? In what ways is Putin a centrist? Putin, from the point of view, again, of the role of the church, from the point of view of his reactionary nature, is a right-wing reactionary, he is a person who actually creates a monarchy in Russia, a real right-wing reactionary.

He does not raise taxes, indeed, Putin’s tax policy, you even spoke about this yourself in your interviews, tax reform is the only achievement of Putin, in your own opinion.

Do you receive a salary from Dozh?

I get it.

Please go to the accounting department and ask how much they should pay in taxes on top of your salary. Enormous tax burden. And the increase in taxes on truckers, and the endless increase in gasoline prices, and the endless increase in tariffs - these are all taxes. That's why they raise taxes.

Are you against raising taxes?

I am, of course, against raising taxes. I believe that taxes need to be reduced in Russia.

Are you for a flat tax scale?

I believe that it is impossible to cancel it now, because there will simply be more administration. In general, it does not look fair, but, for example, if we cancel it tomorrow, we will simply lose a large part of our taxes. I am, of course, in favor of reducing the tax burden on business; I am in favor of reducing the tax burden, most importantly, on the salary fund. A point in our program says that small businesses should generally be exempt from both taxes and regulation.

Are you for the denationalization of some major?...

I don’t really understand what denationalization is.

We know that in Russia in recent years there has been a de facto process of nationalization of a huge number of enterprises, which in one way or another become state-owned.

I understand. Of course, I am in favor of reducing the percentage of the economy that is controlled by the state. Now this is more than 85%, in practice even more through quasi-state companies. Of course, nothing can develop in Russia and nothing is developing, as we have seen in recent years, because the state has seized everything. Everywhere there are just some immense Rosnefts, Gazproms and Rostecs, and there is practically no private business here.

So it can be given into private hands? Organize, conditionally, such a second wave of privatization in Russia?

Actually. Or rather, legally. They are already private companies. Look, Sechin. When you tell him: “You have a state company,” “No, not a state company, we have a private company here.” Of course, we must reduce the share of state ownership in the largest companies, and certainly the state must completely withdraw from competitive industries such as the oil industry, such as the banking sector.

Another important issue that largely divides your supporters. I would like to understand, according to Alexei Navalny, Russia globally is still a mono-ethnic state with a majority of Russians, of this mono-ethnic group, or is it still a multi-ethnic state? After all, is Russia about the state of Russians or about the state of Russians, as it was back in Soviet times?

I don’t really understand this question, and it seems to me that there is a lot of far-fetched stuff here.

A very clear question.

Completely incomprehensible.

Well, we have a titular nation - Russians.

We have facts that show that in Russia 85% of people consider themselves Russian. From the point of view of various standards, including political science, excuse me, this can be considered a mono-ethnic country. Nevertheless, Russia is, of course, a multinational state; there are other large ethnic groups.

Now let's talk about facts.

I accept these facts.

You, Alexei Navalny, a candidate for the post of President of the Russian Federation, do you want the majority of people in our country to feel like Russians or feel like Russians?

The majority of people in our country objectively feel themselves Russian, they are Russian. This is a made-up problem, Ksenia. Of course, we need to form a civil nation, we don’t need to force a Tatar to declare that he is Russian, but it is also quite pointless and stupid to demand from Russians that they forget the word “Russian” and say: “We are Russians.” In reality, this is a useless, fictitious construct.

Previously, in the USSR, conditionally, one could have different attitudes towards the policies of the USSR, but there was one factor that objectively united us all.

Soviet citizens?

Yes, Soviet citizens. These citizens all knew who Pushkin was, they all grew up reading the same literature. Now, if you go to Tatarstan, if you go a little further abroad, I don’t know, to Uzbekistan or somewhere else, to the CIS countries, this integrity, of course, will no longer exist at all.

What for? Naturally, no one in Uzbekistan knows who Pushkin is.

Do we want to leave this integrity of one cultural background within our country, at least within Russia?

She is. I assure you that in any school in Tatarstan or Chechnya they teach Pushkin, there is a single school curriculum, there is a single state language - Russian. And so on. It’s all there, and you don’t need to invent anything. Once again, all these strange things - the Ministry of National Policy, some made-up things - they are not needed at all. No need to fence the garden.

In fact, there were no Soviet citizens, and we saw this in full force in 1991, when everyone disconnected, and now everyone has forgotten the Russian language, no one speaks it. And when they now try to tell me that Uzbekistan is especially close to us, so let’s let everyone here without visas, this is obviously not true. And inside Russia, of course, there is Russian culture, Russian culture, it unites us all into a single cultural code.

Russian or Russian after all?

Russian and Russian.

Do you feel Russian?

Well, of course. I am Russian by nationality, I feel Russian, I feel like a citizen of Russia. And this is in no way included...

Can you answer me honestly? In your address to Alisher Usmanov, which I really liked, I even wrote, it made a strong impression on many people, you so emphatically address him every time by his first name, patronymic, and last name, as if emphasizing each time his non-Russian origin.

And if he were Ivan Ivanovich, would I treat him differently?

It seems to me that you would less often pronounce this phrase like this: “Ivan Ivanovich Ivanov.”

Any person I don’t know who is older than me in age, I will address him by his first name and patronymic. And especially to a person I don’t like. I try not to be rude to him, but to speak politely, also because politeness often irritates people even more than rudeness.

The only thing is, since we started talking about Alisher’s appeals, they made a lot of noise, and your answers...

You don't call him Burkhanovich now to avoid underlining?

I feel like I’m Russian, but at the same time I’m a Russian woman, and that’s important to me.

And this has nothing to do with it?

Look, from the point of view of this appeal of yours and the subsequent reaction, you don’t regret that you did such a big investigation, cool, with facts and so on, and this fly in the ointment in the form of this strange story about rape, which he got hooked on, and it turned out, that this is really a rumor, someone said it, and the British Ambassador said it somewhere, but it was impossible to find facts and pieces of paper...

I didn’t say it somewhere, but wrote it on my blog. This is the first.

Do you regret mentioning this fact? Without him, it would be a completely clean story.

In the investigation, we did not mention Usmanov’s criminal record at all. In general, not a single word was said there, because we wanted not to create additional negative connotations for it. As for the rest of the story, well, of course, I told everything I know about his biography, including this fact. And I would like to draw your attention to the fact that in the court decision that Usmanov squeezed out of the Russian judicial system, they did not touch this point.

Returning to the agenda, now we will definitely understand whether you are left or right. Many people say that all these anti-gay laws are a huge trap for whoever comes next to power, because repealing such laws is much more difficult than creating them. We have a large core of conservative electorate, family people, homophobic people, let’s say. and any president, even if he sincerely sympathizes with or has no relation to this group of citizens, will have problems canceling all this.

This is wrong. You probably don’t remember, but even when I was still enrolling in law school, there was an article in the Criminal Code “Homosexuality.” Nevertheless, it was canceled without any problems at all, no one even noticed.

"Sodomy". Are you ready to allow gay marriage?

I believe that we need to follow the path that the United States followed before the Supreme Court decision, namely: to hold referendums at the level of federal subjects. Attitudes towards gay marriage will certainly be very different in Dagestan or St. Petersburg. But personally, if there was a vote, I have no problems or obstacles to allowing people to get married.

What about banning abortion?

I oppose the ban on abortion, of course. Now to ban abortions is simply to make it so that simply thousands of women, tens of thousands of women, maybe hundreds of thousands of women, looking at the real statistics of abortions in Russia, will run to have them illegally, will die, will get sick, some kind of illegal medicine. Of course, this cannot be done. Of course, we must strive to ensure that there are fewer abortions; there are a monstrous number of them in Russia. But these are not prohibitive measures, these are financial measures, including so that a woman does not think that becoming a single mother is all, these are problems, the collapse of life. These are social mechanisms.

Look, everything you are saying so far is, in general, really such a center-left agenda. What is right in you? Can you list them yourself?

I don’t understand, explain to me what right is? In traditional, I apologize very much, political science, the visa regime is probably considered a right-wing agenda. I am in favor of giving people permits to own handguns - this is considered a traditional right-wing agenda. For example, in American political science it would be the right. Visa regime, weapons - these are right-wing. Banning abortion is leftist. Tax cuts are right-wing again. I say again, all this makes no sense in Russia, because in Russia the state is fundamentally perverted, and what I am speaking out with is not a right-wing agenda and not a left-wing agenda, it’s just a return to normality.

Conventionally, let’s imagine these elections, there is Putin, who has his own electorate, his own clear concept of the development of the state. What if we take our minds off corruption, from the Ozero cooperative, from your...

I can't get distracted.

I understand, but try. Imagine that all this has already happened, you have released all this, these investigations, people already know about them, see them, and so on. But from the point of view of the essential meanings of the development of the Russian economy and Russian politics, what can you oppose to Putin, what is your global difference from him, if we remove the topic of the fact that you are fighting theft and corruption.

This is the essential difference. This cannot be removed, and this is the key mistake of many people who say: “Well, the fight against corruption - okay, this is such nonsense, let's talk about something else.”

This is not nonsense at all, this is very important work. But do you have something in your economic program, in your political development program, that...

Of course yes. We oppose the fact that the state has now eaten up the entire economy, we advocate reducing the role of the state, we advocate an emphasis on the development of human capital. Putin is consistently cutting spending on education and health care and increasing the military and police budget.

Tell me honestly, what is the reason for the fact that lately, I have been following your speeches, before they were strictly anti-Putin, there were a lot of offensive words, personal words, comparisons with some kind of animals, I don’t even want to repeat...

With what animals?

I remember this speech from the rally, that he is now small and smooth as a mouse, hid somewhere there, I don’t even want to quote. Why has this rhetoric changed now?

I certainly support everything that I said earlier, I really believe that they are corrupt officials and thieves, including Putin personally, that is what they are, and there is no point in denying this. Now you are asking me about the essential difference. I won’t say: he is a thief and I am not. Yes, it is a basic difference, but you asked about approaches to economics. Therefore, I say: my approach to the economy is that we will reduce taxes on small businesses, reduce salary taxes, take more from Putin’s sacred cow, namely oil and gas companies, we will reduce the military and police budget, develop human capital.

Let's be honest. Many people who support you...

From the very first word in this program I was honest.

The people who support you - large businesses, medium-sized businesses, many of my friends with whom I communicate - they all say roughly the same thing: “Yes, we don’t like what’s happening now, we understand that Navalny is I'm right in many ways. But we also understand that the destruction of a system, even one as terrible as the system built now, would be an incredible crisis in any case. Just like there was a crisis in the 90s, when the democrats, using the right ideas of freedom and liberalism, destroyed the old system, and no matter how rotten it was, the hungry years still came, and they were not to blame for these hungry years, it was just that the system collapsed.”

Aren't you afraid that you are a hostage of this very process? No matter how wonderful you are, no matter how wonderful the program you have, if it really happens that Putin leaves or something happens and you win now or in the next elections, you will find yourself in a system that will be completely destroyed, a new cannot be created in a few days, and you will find yourself in a deep economic crisis, from which you will have to...

Not afraid. And your friends make mistakes, and this is not predetermined. In fact, there are no real prerequisites for any cataclysms to occur.

Well, how is it not predetermined? Everything is now in this conditional cooperative “Lake”, everything is distributed, all the mechanisms are working crookedly. How are you all going to do this?...

Firstly, as we see, they practically do not work or, at best, crookedly. Dealing with the Ozero dacha cooperative is the least of the problems, it is quite easy to deal with, these people have committed criminal offenses, and we understand how to prosecute them, how to return their property back to the national property. In the 90s, all this happened because the price of oil fell dramatically, there was simply no money, and the Soviet Union, like Russia now, is, of course, a raw material appendage of Western countries. At today's level, at $50 a barrel we are still making a lot, a lot of money.

And if tomorrow Putin, imagine, tomorrow aliens took Putin, and Shoigu took his place. Nothing will change at all. Nothing at all. Or then aliens took Shoigu, and instead of them - I know, anyone from this government, I don’t like Shuvalov.

Can I continue this thought? Many believe that if aliens take Putin, and even if Navalny is nearby, as the brightest politician of the younger generation, nothing will change either, because Navalny is one of the towers of the Kremlin.

This thought is wrong.

And they put everyone around, Navalny is the only one who is not sitting, and somehow nothing so global happens to Navalny. Why is it all arranged this way? This is a question that a huge number of people ask.

Nothing major is happening to me, except that my brother, who was in solitary confinement for a year and a half, was imprisoned, except that our office is constantly being raided.

Why are you free, Alexey?

You should ask those with whom you communicate at the St. Petersburg Economic Forum. I don't know.

I wasn't there this year.

I just do what I have to do, I do the things that I believe in.

Doesn't this make you think about something? Don't you think this is strange?

I think about this all the time, but I don’t try to figure out what’s going on in Putin’s head. I was once imprisoned, I saw what happened before my eyes.

You understand that you were released on Putin’s personal orders?

Do you understand that the decision on the elections and your participation in the presidential elections will be made personally by Putin?

No, I don't understand this. I know…

Don't you think so?

Let me answer. I understand that I was released on Putin’s personal instructions, just as I was imprisoned before on Putin’s personal instructions, for one simple reason: because people took to the streets. And on his perverted scales, on which Putin weighs what he needs to do and portrays himself as some kind of mental judoka, he decided that now he needs to launch and conduct some other strategy against us.

Therefore, what happens next—my registration for the presidential election or non-registration—will not depend on Putin, it will depend on whether I can unite a sufficient number of people who will create sufficient political pressure to force them to register me. Of course they don't want to, why do they need to register me? Of course, if we don’t do anything and become like all the other allegedly opposition politicians, of course, they won’t register. Are they fools or what? They act within the framework of their logic. But we can certainly force them to do it.

We remember that story, it was also discussed about the fact that Sobyanin gave you votes so that you could be elected. It is clear that this was also done clearly with some kind of supreme permission.

Why did the supreme resolution happen? Because I announced that I would run, it was just... not these days, it was June 5, and we immediately began the election campaign. Two weeks later we put up the first, I think, cubes on the street, we started a massive propaganda campaign, and these are all the supreme people, as you call them...

We know how elections are removed, you know that.

You didn’t listen to me, and therefore you don’t know how to withdraw from the elections. We began to conduct an aggressive election campaign, and the Kremlin, the mayor’s office, and anyone saw that no one would recognize these elections if I was not allowed to participate.

That is, Sobyanin and Putin were scared?

Yes. They were afraid that these elections would not be recognized, and decided that yes, we need this municipal barrier that they put in front of everyone, in this case they need to raise it and allow me to participate in the elections. I don’t care how they decide to do it there, I knew that I had the right to participate in the elections for the mayor of Moscow, I demanded it, and I was allowed. And I know now that I have every right to participate in the presidential elections, that there are a large number of people who support me, and I will demand the implementation of this right.

How can an experienced politician answer my question about a certain abstract Alexei Navalny? Let’s take a little break from ourselves and just talk to me from the point of view of your political experience. My words will sound very cynical, I sincerely wish you many years of a healthy, good life...

My God, are you really going to ask my favorite question now: why weren’t you killed? After my second favorite question: why weren’t you imprisoned?

Not certainly in that way. Conventionally, trying to get into the head of Putin and the people who make decisions, or Kadyrov, it seems obvious to me that when weighing the risks, especially after the tragedy that happened with Nemtsov, what are these people risking? The fact that 200 thousand people will come out once, and after that they will close the global problem for them? Because if you are not at one with them, you are a global problem for them. Conventionally, it’s anything: I drove off the road, I don’t know, something happened, crazy Chechens arrived or some other story like that. Why, in your opinion, do they not follow this path, which we understand that they followed before our eyes...

You are interested in all this because you are a young political scientist and studied to become one. And that doesn't interest me. I am not going to subject to any analysis the things that I know about. I haven’t seen Putin, I haven’t thought about it and I’m not going to think about it, because I’m not interested. How do you imagine that? That I came home and thought: why didn’t they kill me, because they would have solved a global problem? It's pointless to think about it, we don't know for sure how these people think.

I can tell you why you should think about this - because you are alone in this field precisely because... you are a very talented person, but I am sure that we have many talented politicians in Russia who could compete with you in the fight for this place and in the fight against Putin. You are alone precisely because everyone knows what is happening with Nemtsov, everyone knows that this can happen to any person who crosses this “double line.”

Wait. They are afraid. Everyone else is afraid.

They probably think that the option of simply physical destruction is extremely possible.

Let's say this in a normal way. They don't want to compete with me because they are afraid.

Why aren't you afraid then?

I'm not afraid. I am a normal person, I don’t enjoy the thought that something might happen, it’s quite unpleasant for me when some kind of “surveillance” is constantly running after me or cars are driving by. But nevertheless, instead of working, I’m not going to spend all day thinking: my God, why didn’t they kill me? Yeah, I have no idea. I do what they think is necessary, and I will do what I think is necessary because it is right. People support me for this, 115 thousand volunteers have signed up for me, my election campaign is financed with small donations, I see people’s support and continue my activities. But this is all, reflection about who killed whom or didn’t kill whom - it’s pointless, there’s no point in wasting time on these thoughts.

Understood. But, given that you are not afraid of Putin, it is unlikely that you are afraid of Kovalchuk, so a small question, but it is important for me to ask you: why did you yourself cut out a video about Kovalchuk from your website?

We post a lot of different videos on our channel. There are investigations that I publish, there are just thoughts or funny videos, or reviews. There was a review about Kovalchuk, and the point of the video was that all media in Russia belongs to Kovalchuk, and this is true, in this sense the video was truthful. But after it was published, I didn’t watch it, to be honest, before publication carefully, there was outdated data, that is, there was no substantive error, but there was outdated data, so I said that I needed to delete the video and make another one, more interesting.

So that was the only reason?

Yes, sure.

I also can’t help but ask about Sechin. There was a story with spoons, but, as they say, the spoons were found, but the sediment remained.

Is the sediment against me or against Sechin?

Against spoons. Why are there no major investigations about Sechin?

It seems to me that if we look at my channel, then I even criticize Usmanov and Medvedev less than Sechin. That is, I talk about Sechin all the time.

The story with Stas Belkovsky is also a short question.

What is the story with Stas Belkovsky?

We read a lot of his comments, and we know that you were also connected with him, Stas Belkovsky claimed and talked about giving you money. That is, in January 2010 there was a correspondence, it was recognized, this correspondence, a campaign against Oleg Deripaska’s Rusal, 50 thousand dollars.

This is the first time I’ve heard about this, that Stas Belkovsky said and asserted something.

"Vedomosti".

When it was?

Wait, it wasn’t Belkovsky who said, excuse me, I’m reading from the respected publication Vedomosti, a quote from there: “From Navalny’s correspondence with political scientist Stanislav Belkovsky it follows that in January 2010 Belkovsky ordered Navalny a campaign against Oleg Rusal for 50 thousand dollars Deripaska. The company was just conducting IPO".

Did Vedomosti write this? This means that there were many different correspondences. Something was opened, something was not opened, something was invented.

Did you receive money from Stas?

For some campaigns against Rusal - of course not. Belkovsky and I talked for quite a long time and there was no funding... Belkovsky - he doesn’t even have the money to finance anything on a large scale, this is quite interesting...

Belkovsky gave you money - yes or no?

That is, the attack on Deripaska was in itself.

Even now I am ready to carry out a raid on Deripaska with pleasure, because Deripaska is the same raw materials oligarch as everyone else.

That is, just at the moment when the company was conducting IPO on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange.

This had nothing to do with the IPO on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange.

Coincidence?

And it could not affect the IPO on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange. This, you know, is from the same series, someone thinks that I am attacking Shuvalov because Sechin asks me to do so, or that I am attacking Sechin because Miller is asking me to do so.

It's clear. Another quote from your former comrade-in-arms should also be given, from Udaltsov’s wife. For some reason she is very...

Udaltsov’s wife is definitely not my ally.

You and Anastasia used to communicate, as I understand it, we even saw each other together, and Udaltsov was the person who was with you at rallies.

Udaltsov? Sergei Udaltsov, who is a political prisoner and was one of the leaders of left-wing organizations, was certainly my ally and participated in the Coordination Council of the Opposition. What his wife says is of little interest to me.

I’ll explain for our viewers, you said that you were busy raising money for Leonid Razvozzhaev and, accordingly...

I wasn't busy collecting money.

That you are collecting money for prisoners, this is your quote, that people need to be supported, and so on.

I do not do that. I recently collected a lot of money, we collected 870 thousand rubles for a person who was arrested...

You spoke about this in the city of Vladimir.

... for a man who was arrested at a rally on the 26th. As for collecting money for other political prisoners...

You also said about Razvozzhaev.

Can you answer me please? I supported all this, I called for it, but I was not directly involved in the collection. I wrote: “Transfer to such and such a wallet,” I was not directly involved in the collection, this is not my function, these are wonderful people who collect money, but I already have a lot of work to do, I don’t have time to administer it all.

It’s just that Anastasia Udaltsova, in response to this, said that Alexei Navalny is lying in the rhythm of his breathing, Razvozzhaev’s lawyer Agranovsky claims in a video message that he has not seen a single penny. In general, there was a whole big scandal.

Ksenia, if you go to Udaltsov’s wife on Twitter, you will read something about yourself that will be simply scary.

I'm not coming in.

And you are doing the right thing. And I don't come in. I am not interested.

But I'm not running. You know, I'm in the house.

I’m running, but to be honest, even taking into account the fact that I’m running, I’m not at all interested in what Udaltsov’s wife says.

You know, it’s called, and about culture at the end. Have you heard...

The end has already come.

Do you want more with me?

Of course I want more.

With pleasure.

We have not yet decided where I am, right or left.

Well, you said that you are a centrist. That is, you occupy the place that is now “United Russia”.

I’m just trying to reassure you so that your political science itch will stop.

Then you will have posters, and it will say: “I am for stability.” Well, just one more step, and we will be there. By the way, this is a very good political move - young Putin. By the way, think about this.

You shouldn’t have gone to MGIMO to study political science. Something else was needed, Ksenia.

Why, if you scold Putin not for corruption, but for the fact that I’m just the same, but young, this, in principle, would also be quite promising.

Can I give you some political science advice? You will run for office, you will say, I am young and a woman, and you will scold him for this.

Fine. Now seriously, about culture. Many people were very worried about the process that happened with Kirill Serebrennikov. A huge number of worthy people came to the theater. Why didn’t you support this meeting with your own participation and weren’t there at the theater?

As far as I remember, it seems to me that I was in Barcelona just then, having an operation. I won’t lie, I either went to open headquarters, or... in any case, it seemed to me that I was not in Moscow. I spoke about Serebrennikov, and in my program.

Yes, I remember that.

I can still explain my position. But no, I didn’t come to the theater.

Your position is that this is actually a certain general situation around theatrical cultural life, as I understand it, which also results in such things that...

I believe that the case against Serebrennikov, and this is certainly an ordered case, now a woman has been arrested there, from whom they are simply clearly extracting testimony against him. And of course, this is a trend, in general such a reactionary trend, when the state in any more or less independent manifestations of something, in particular creative ones, despite the fact that Serebrennikov is quite loyal to the state, it can no longer tolerate even this degree of loyalty and therefore trying to eat everything, and trying to eat it now.

What is your favorite Serebrennikov performance, if you have seen any.

I went to the Muller Machine, but I have never seen so many naked people in one place. I went just when there were elections to the State Duma, it somehow resonated with what was happening. I liked Metamorphoses. I liked “Müller’s Machine,” well, it’s interesting, but I liked it a little less. I can't say that I'm a big theater fan. I'm not the right person to ask, because it turns out that I'm a redneck in that sense.

What three books influenced you the most?

I read a lot and continue to read a lot. Influenced? "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" was one of my favorite books. And in general, Mark Twain, I really appreciated him, and I still do. I find it difficult. My favorite book is "War and Peace". I believe that “War and Peace” is the main work, after which, in a certain sense...

Are you seriously? Is this a book that influenced you? Are you seriously? Well, you are clearly not a Tolstoyan.

First of all, what does Tolstoyan have to do with it? Secondly, what are you talking about, Ksenia, what are you saying?

Listen, non-resistance of evil to violence, Tolstoy, the concept of what cannot be...

It's not related in any way. Tolstoy's philosophy, what is commonly called Tolstoyism, has no direct relation to War and Peace, to what I really believe is the main work of Russian literature and, perhaps, world literature.

What did you like about it? Why is it?

By the way, you know, I’m talking about your sarcasm, about the words: my God, “War and Peace,” ha-ha, my favorite work.

Now I am completely without sarcasm.

At Yale, I remember we had a strategic planning seminar, a seminar on strategy, which was very difficult to get into. And there they said that “War and Peace” is the main work that a person must read in order to even get into our course and understand something in this course. Therefore, many value Tolstoy even more than we do inside Russia.

I say this without sarcasm. Do you remember this character, Platon Karataev?

Yes, sure. But I don’t have to identify myself with any characters, I don’t have to lie somewhere on the floor, looking like Austerlitz at the sky.

What's your favorite character?

Yes, I don't have a favorite character. I like this book, I find it interesting. I like the way it is written, I like the interweaving of characters, I like the psychologism of, excuse me, Leo Tolstoy. But I’m not going to think about how I’m similar to Pierre Bezukhov, or how I’m not. Well, this is simply funny.

Can you name another third book?

I don’t want to tell you the third book. I'm sorry, I think this is a pretty pointless question, I like a lot of different books.

Not pointless at all. Do you know why it's not meaningless? I'll tell you why.

Let's turn on Posner and ask me - what would I ask God if I found myself in front of him?

No, this is what I hope you will tell Posner someday when he invites you to Channel One. I wish you to live until this time. But I’m asking you about books...

This will be difficult.

I'm asking for a reason. For example, I recently finished reading the memoirs of one of my favorite American politicians, Roosevelt. And there, among other things, he very interestingly says that he believes that, in principle, a politician should not be a professional politician, but a president. That there should be a strong bureaucracy in America, but the president should be a person as far from politics as possible, preferably some kind of farmer or some person from other spheres, because politics itself greatly spoils a person. And we know examples in history, such as Vaclav Havel or the example of Sakharov, who, perhaps, did not become a politician, but was, in fact, a great political figure.

Walesa is the same.

I'm not offended. I'm okay with all this. But people... Politics is a complicated thing. It is complex precisely in the sense of terms. It is simply difficult for many people to say correctly what they mean, again due to the problems of this political terminology. Well, they talk and talk. Of course, I believe that the issue is not the president, but the issue is strong institutions. Excuse me for such a banality. There must be a bureaucracy, there must be a system that slows down any president, or, on the contrary, gives him a kick so that he works. Times have changed since Roosevelt's time. And as we see, a businessman president came to the White House, and apparently things aren’t working out very well there. But of course, I believe that a person who enters these offices, presidential offices, must first of all be a normal person, he must say the right things, he must have the right view of the world. And that is why, probably, the best presidents in recent history were those who did not have much bureaucratic experience. Obama, the same Havel you mentioned, or Walesa, Angela Merkel, they did not manage any Gazproms, they were not red directors, they were not involved in big business. But they have the right views on how society should be structured. Because the president is a person who, by and large, must say the right words and correspond in his daily life to the principles that he proclaims, and then everything below will begin to change.

Last question on this topic. Alexey, don’t you think that the very idea of ​​becoming president and wanting to become president is quite strange from a psychological point of view? That is, this is the idea of ​​​​the maximum ego, which wants to realize itself in such an incredible position. Regardless of whether you want it for the people, for the future of the country, that is the desire itself, and I know that you have a very great desire and determination, you are doing a lot to achieve this goal, and I wish you that it was achieved sooner or later. This is the main goal of your life. That's why, why you so want to become...

Ksenia, I don’t have a manic goal to become president. I would like to change the country, including because I live in it, my children live here, my family lives here, friends, relatives. I like living here, I like speaking Russian. And I am categorically not happy with what is happening. I know for sure, one hundred percent, that we could live much better if we changed some things in the country, and small things, they need to be changed, and tomorrow the world around us will become much better.

Aren't you afraid that the authorities will ruin you, Alexey?

Power will most likely spoil any person if he remains in power for too long. So now it seems to me that, of course, I... well, of course, she won’t spoil me. But people should not believe just verbal guarantees, there should be a system in which eight years is the maximum, and goodbye, go retire or do something else. Four years, was able to get re-elected - another four years.

In your situation, you understand that it will not be so, that people will have to take your word for it, because you will come to the country, which currently does not have these institutions at all. With absent courts, with a corrupt system of everything and all state institutions, you will come to this system in which you will have to believe that you will find within yourself the will to personally limit your own powers and build this system.

This is the wrong approach. We are not in Somalia, we are not in a primitive communal system, and this is not the 16th century. The necessary institutions in Russia are not only easy, they can be built quickly enough in the foreseeable and near future, if there is a desire, both the judicial system and law enforcement agencies. We have money, we have an educated population, some infrastructure remains, we have industry, so there is no need to say that here we are right in the desert, and people are running around in loincloths, and we must choose the chief judge from among them. Well, that's actually not true. We understand how to reform both the judicial system and law enforcement agencies. When I become president, we will create these institutions quite quickly, partly because we will introduce self-restraint, which concerns the reduction of the presidential term, the refusal to appoint judges and independence in appointment. The most important thing, one of the most important, is the independence of the media. The Rain TV channel will broadcast what it wants, where it wants, on cable networks.

Will you come to the debate with the rank of president?

Please tell me, have many presidential candidates sat in your chair and answered your questions, which I will not hide, I did not always like? I'm sitting here answering questions. And I will continue to answer them.

Special thanks to you for this. I hope that in our new status we will have the opportunity to communicate with you someday. Thank you for this interview, Alexey. Thank you for coming to our studio.

Thank you, Ksenia.

I must say and apologize for the not entirely accurate quote from Lev Shlosberg, my editors tell me that the meaning is correct, but from the point of view of specific words, you can look, and our TV viewers can look at Echo of Moscow, it is a little bit different.

I forgive you, Ksenia. And I'm sorry that I tried to tease you with this wonderful video message, please forgive me.

Thank you very much. Alexei Navalny, politician, presidential candidate Russia was our guest today. Good luck to you, Alexey.

Last night Alexey Navalny became a guest of the “Sobchak Live” show on the Dozhd TV channel. The interview was broadcast on the Dozhd website and Youtube:

For those who were unable to watch it to the end, there are two good retellings. First published Nikita Likhachev(TJournal):

Sobchak began with how Navalny received a foreign passport, then discussed the “nonsense” that the Facebook crowd writes about politics, and moved on to his economic program as a presidential candidate.

Navalny couldn't answer what percentage of Russia's consolidated GDP is spent on health care - but he didn't have a clue in the form of a producer in his ear. Sobchak, who claimed that experts are complaining about inflated social spending in Russia, in response to Navalny’s question, could not accurately name the name of economist Andrei Movchan.

The second - quotation - can be read from Romana Dobrokhotova :

Summary of the Sobchak-Navalny interview:

Sobchak:
- Do you know how much Russia spends on healthcare from its GDP?
Navalny:
- I know
Sobchak:
- Well, how much? From consolidated GDP! From the consolidated federal budget.
Navalny:
- Consolidated or federal??
Sobchak:
- Consolidated! How many? From GDP!
Navalny:
- Ksenia, do you even know how the consolidated budget differs from the federal budget?
Sobchak:
- Well, there is a GDP figure for healthcare! I’ll tell you now - 3.6% of GDP!
<...>
Navalny:
- The military-police budget needs to be reduced and healthcare costs increased.
Sobchak:
- Many experts say that social spending in Russia is inflated.
Navalny:
- Which experts?
Sobchak:
- Quite a lot of experts
Navalny:
- Which for example?
Sobchak:
- When we were preparing for this program, we talked with a number of people...
Navalny:
- Well, this is from the “tell me the percentage” series. There are no such experts!
Sobchak:
- Sheep! Kudrin! Oreshkin!
Navalny:
-Who-who is first?
Sobchak:
- Sheep!
Navalny:
- Maybe you mean Andrey Movchan ?
Sobchak:
- Marchan, yes!
Navalny:
- Marchan, Movchan or Ovchan?
Sobchak:
- I say it again Mov-chan!

The last dialogue begs to be looped:

And, of course, the harmonies do not end there.

So 4chan or blockchain?

Obchak, Ovchak or Sobchak? UPD: WELL OF COURSE MOVCHAK

To the former chief editor of RBC, these reservations seemed symbolic.

everything you need to know about talking about the economy in this interview

Andrei Movchan, director of the Economic Policy program at the Carnegie Moscow Center, has not yet commented on this dialogue on his Facebook page. Meanwhile, they write on the Internet that Sobchak “must marry him” or at least send him a bouquet of flowers. But not only this fragment of the interview seemed strange to commentators.

Navalny’s monstrous interview with Sobchak
Almost a continuation of yesterday’s “Anchovies and Daisies” and Usman’s lawsuit.
Navalny is presented with incriminating evidence, starting from 2005, they are not allowed to finish a single sentence, the vocabulary of “Sputnik and Pogrom” is used to make the question “Russian or Russian?” discuss in a raised voice.

After this disgusting interview, Sobchak has to admit that his attacks on Moscow journalists are legitimate. Instead of interviews like this, it’s better to listen to him yourself on YouTube. It’s especially disgusting that she forced him to comment on Schlossberg’s already debunked pseudo-quotes.

Many agreed that compared to the experienced video blogger, Sobchak looked unprepared.

I couldn’t finish watching Navalny at Sobchak’s. A classic example of how not to interview. And a visible confirmation of why a video blog is a comfortable format for Navalny

How can you go out for an interview with a person who has not kept his mouth shut for the past months and has already perfected all his rhetorical techniques without preparation? Not a single prepared and worked question.
That's why they don't look.

Before this, 2 hours before this program, he appeared on his YouTube channel with a weekly program answering questions from viewers. A striking contrast. How much useful information and smart thoughts on current events was there, and how much waste and pointless waste of time Sobchak had

Sobchak was clearly weak. A set of cliched questions, an attempt to fit the interlocutor into a primitive framework invented by her, aggressive interruption at every step, such as a “quote” from 10 years ago. It sucks, in a word.
Navalny has increased considerably. He withstood the blow completely and almost did not succumb to provocations. Looked open and confident

...These questions: what books influenced you - well, these questions are completely from the children's series, what else should you ask when there is nothing to ask. Well, in the end I ran into “What are you talking about, Ksenia?!” Big win for the interviewer.

Sobchak constantly tries to talk to Navalny about the economy. "Putin does not raise taxes." Sometimes it's better to be silent)))

- Alexey, why don’t you give interviews?
- I give it all the time, although I’m very tired of answering the question “why haven’t you been killed yet” for the thousandth time?
- Come to us for an interview and ask some pressing, fresh questions!
- I'll come
- Alexey, why haven’t they killed you yet?

Others think that Navalny did not appear in the best light in this interview.

The questions are very bad and the answers are very bad :(

With an effort of will, I forced myself to watch the Sobchak-Navalny interview until the middle. I'll watch the second half tomorrow. This is an example of how not to interview. And, probably, how not to give it. Navalny needed to break up the meaningless, ragged, poorly prepared and incompetent conversation. And he followed him. And he responded poorly.

I started today what I didn’t finish watching last night. And she paused again. Impossible. How not to take an interview and how not to go to an interview and give one. She irritated him right away, from the first minute. He was already on the screw. Very bad interview. Mutually, on both sides

After the verdict and a day spent in the Kirov pre-trial detention center, Alexey Navalny gave his first big interview to Ksenia Sobchak on the Dozhd TV channel. Navalny spoke as if in a different status - a major federal politician - today enormous attention has been focused on him, and the interview caused a great resonance.

Ksenia Sobchak told Citiboom about her own impressions of this conversation.

– You asked Alexei Navalny quite tough questions. How satisfied were you with his answers?

– It’s probably not for me to judge. We need to see what those who watched the interview say, how satisfied they were with these answers. But speaking from a distance, after the interview I think that Alexey is now in a stressful situation, and I understand that it is easy for us to talk about how a person who could go to prison for five years from week to week might feel. But at the same time, I think that, as in the book that I gave him on the show (“Dragon” by Schwartz), the biggest victory of swindlers and thieves over Navalny will be if they manage to embitter him, harden him. A person who is broken by anger and aggression can become a second Putin, and in this case, nothing will change for those people who want real change. I would like to wish Alexey to cope with his understandable feelings and emotions and remain in history as an enlightened person who was able to overcome his fears (he has already succeeded), and his anger, and his very human desire for revenge.

– On Twitter, you provided a link to a post by film expert Yuri Bogomolov, where he, among other things, said that Navalny is at a fork in the road: he can defeat the system, but lose himself, as happened with Solzhenitsyn and Yeltsin. What does this choice mean?

– When a person is under such pressure, when he is threatened with a prison term, when he is being persecuted, he becomes bitter, embittered and wants to take revenge. This is absolutely impossible to do, this is the collapse of everything that we are all fighting for. I hope that Alexey, like me, is fighting against the impersonal system that does not allow people in our country to live and develop freely. If he fights with his personal enemies - with Putin, with Yakunin, with someone else - then this fight will not bring victory to anyone.

Well, if he defeats Putin, he himself will become Putin 2.0. Neither he himself nor all of us will benefit from this. It seems to me that truly noble, honest people who came out to Bolotnaya Square a year ago to defend, first of all, their human dignity, are fighting an impersonal system, having no sentiments, neither positive nor negative, neither for Putin, nor for Sechin, nor to anyone else from this system. I really don’t like all these jokes about “Putin – Botox”, posts where Sobyanin is presented as Putin’s wife, I think that this is off topic and not to the point. You need to grow out of the age of mutual insults and cruelty and understand that you can truly destroy the system only by destroying its mechanisms, remaining impartial and condemning exclusively political decisions, and not anything else.

– Which of these groups is Navalny closer to?

- Differently. Now he manifests himself in different ways. This is understandable, because he is trying to gather everyone around him in order to get the necessary support - nationalists, liberals, and others. But, on the other hand, we again don’t know who he is really closer to. And won’t it turn out that with all this stress, Navalny will make a choice towards toughening up, especially since this choice is very tempting: the crowd will always choose the most aggressive and toughest. This is how people are made, the crowd will always choose the one who will play along with its lowest feelings. There is great danger here. For me, the great figures of history were those who did not follow, but led the crowd behind them - promoted their policies regardless of the mood in society. Remember the great Margaret Thatcher. Or Churchill, some of his beliefs were also not at all close to the British, but he pushed through them and was able to convince the whole country that he was right. I would really like Alexey to convince the country of the correctness of the path of noble confrontation, without insults, without revenge, without aggression, albeit difficult and longer, but necessary for gaining real statehood.

– Has Navalny changed lately?

“He’s probably changing because the situation is changing.” It’s easy for us to talk about what it’s like. But we cannot know how it really is. It seems to me that he is getting tougher, but this is a temporary story associated with stress. I would really hate for him to become a defender of the marginalized gopniks whom he incites with his aggression. I want to see in him a leader of people who are confident in their position, thoughtful, intelligent, and people who resist this ferocious aggression.

– Do you feel today, in particular in connection with Navalny, a moral dilemma of choosing between your professional duty and your civic sense?

– Yes, of course, I always feel it. But now I have another dilemma. I support what Alexey Navalny is doing, I like his activities and the ideas for which we took to the streets a year ago, but I do not want to support the level of aggression and the energy of radicalism that exists now. I don’t like the ideas of “destroying everything,” “throwing everyone out,” “not a single United Russia member will remain in power.” This is some kind of Bolshevism. I believe that people should work or not work in politics based on their professional background, and not on the basis of the fact that they are United Russia members or not United Russia members. How is this different from today's situation?

It scares me when Navalny says: “I will imprison Putin.” How then is he different from Putin, who is now imprisoning Navalny? I don't like it, of course. Many people today say that former members of United Russia will not have the opportunity to work under the future government, this scares me. How does this differ from today’s situation, when no one except members of United Russia can work? It turns out that we are changing one order to another, exactly the same. But I want there to be an open discussion, pluralism of opinions, including for members of United Russia to prove that they are right, if they are truly convinced United Russia members. And if, among other things, they are professionals, why shouldn’t they work effectively for the benefit of the state? I also believe that having some contacts with today’s authorities is not the greatest evil and sin.

For me, Mikhail Prokhorov, who is undoubtedly in contact with the president, is not a crossed out figure. I always look at business and politics. I may not like his other actions, for example, the fact that he did not create his own party immediately after the presidential elections, or that now he has not nominated anyone for mayor in his place. But I judge precisely by these matters, and not by who he communicates with. We are not fighting for a specific person to come to power, but for changing the system as a whole. The main thing is that there are changes, and who will introduce them, whether Medvedev, Prokhorov, Navalny, Kudrin, is completely unimportant to me. I would support anyone who would undertake to carry them out, even if he was Putin’s closest ally in the past. The main thing is that the changes are real.

– Is Navalny a radical politician?

– I judge by actions, and so far Navalny has not done anything for which he could be called radical. He hasn't crossed that line yet.

– Will Navalny be the mayor of Moscow?

– I think not, unfortunately.

After Ksenia Sobchak’s interview with Alexei Navalny, social network users mainly discussed the mistakes and inaccuracies that were made by the presenter, and almost no one paid attention to the content of the interview, and there were also interesting moments there.

Confusion in numbers and inaccuracies in Navalny's program

Ksenia Sobchak initially chose a rather aggressive interview strategy. Tough questions were asked regarding Navalny's program. In particular, Sobchak asked a question about the validity of the program item on doubling health care costs. Why twice? What are the current healthcare costs in Russia? Navalny was unable to clearly answer the question and for some reason tried to evade a direct answer.

Sobchak: Do you know how much Russia spends on healthcare?

Navalny: Of course I know.

Sobchak: How much?

Navalny: We are now talking about specific provisions of my program. They grow from the experience of developed countries.

It looked like an excuse for a schoolboy who didn’t learn his lessons: “Did you study? Well, I read..."

Ardent supporters of Navalny

Ksenia Sobchak asked Alexei Navalny about his “nuclear electorate,” which consists of his most devoted fans. It has been noted many times online that Navalny’s supporters react aggressively to any criticism of him. The critic’s pages are literally attacked by Navalny’s supporters, many of whom leave obscene comments, dislike videos, and actually persecute the dissident. Just remember the recent case of Ekaterina Vinokurova, whose page was attacked by Navalny’s supporters after a protest against renovation in Moscow.

But in addition to the “nuclear electorate,” Navalny has a large number of bot subscribers at his disposal. In addition, big data analysts of social networks also recorded the active use of bots by Navalny during major information campaigns, for example, during the debate with Lebedev, when bots were used to increase votes and positive comments.

Navalny's positioning

The zeal with which Sobchak tried to get Navalny to answer the question regarding his positioning on the ideological map is incomprehensible. It is worth noting that both Navalny and Sobchak made many funny mistakes. Liberals, according to Navalny, are leftists. "United Russia", according to Ksenia Sobchak, is a centrist party. In general, the political scientists whom Navalny proposed to “throw into the cage of the animals” were surprised not only by their tactlessness, but also by Navalny’s political science knowledge.

It is obvious that with these questions Sobchak was trying to show the blurring of Navalny’s political position and the ideological contradictions in his program. But due to poor preparation on the topic and objective difficulties in the ideological classification, it turned out rather unconvincing. Yes, some points of Navalny’s program are mutually exclusive: active social policy and total tax cuts do not go well together even if the tax burden on the oil and gas sector increases. But demanding that a politician classify himself as left or right did not seem entirely appropriate.

Crimea and Ukraine

Here, as in the case of health care costs, Navalny showed ignorance of the issue. On the issue of Crimea, he avoided answering, saying that there is no simple solution to the issue, which, perhaps, is true. However, Navalny could not offer anything other than another referendum in Crimea. Regarding Donbass and Ukraine, Navalny repeated the mantra that is on everyone’s lips: “the Minsk agreements must be implemented.” What is the essence of the “Minsk agreements”, how to achieve their implementation and who exactly is preventing this process, Navalny does not know.

Visa regime and national policy

Navalny’s program contains a tough position regarding the visa regime with countries of the post-Soviet space. In his opinion, it is necessary to introduce visas and entry quotas. The key topic in the issue of national policy was the North Caucasus. According to Navalny, huge cash injections into the Chechen Republic must be stopped, since Russia has ceased to receive loyalty for them. Navalny never answered how exactly he plans to deny Kadyrov subsidies if he wins the elections. Navalny does not know what to do on this issue.

Markers

Attitudes towards non-traditional marriages and abortion are marker questions that are often asked of politicians. Navalny said that he is not against non-traditional marriages and believes that each region should decide this issue for itself individually. He also opposes the ban on abortion, as this will only lead to the emergence of shadow structures, increased mortality and illness due to illegal abortions.

In general, Ksenia Sobchak asked the right questions that hit Navalny’s pain points: ignorance of the subject, lack of clear positioning, gaps in the strategy on some issues, and much more. Unfortunately, everything was covered by the annoying mistakes and nervousness of Sobchak herself, who, after a good start to the interview, lost the initiative and was no longer able to regain it.

Mikhail Karyagin, political scientist