In August, during the Moscow election campaign, I strongly supported the candidacy of Alexei Navalny, but wrote that I had questions for him that I would definitely ask if the regime did not throw him in prison.

Actually, I had only one serious complaint against Navalny: his penchant for nationalist rhetoric and, in particular, his attitude towards the notorious “Russian March”. For me, participation in the “Russian March” is a sign of professional incompetence for a person claiming to be the leader of the democratic opposition. Translated into actual language, my question to Navalny would mean: “Are you fit to be our leader or not?”

Related materials

I asked Navalny a question about nationalism and the “Russian March” some time ago - in writing and suggested that he answer publicly. He said that even without me he was going to write a special text on this topic: wait, they say, you’ll find out everything from there.

Okay, I waited.

Its meaning is this: Navalny will not go to the Russian March, but in general he warmly approves of this action. Calls on everyone not to doubt, but to go and march.

Well. It turns out that I was mistaken in believing that nationalist nonsense was a youthful illness for Alexei Navalny, from which he had already recovered. I didn't get sick. And this means (at least for me) that this person has not yet grown into a politician at the all-Russian level. Maybe with time. He has the ability to do this, but abilities alone are not enough.

Sorry to have to repeat elementary truths, but in a country where many nations live, any political movement with an ethnic bias is fraught with pogroms, or even the collapse of the country. Russia needs something diametrically opposite: a common cause, a common project, a common goal - something that unites all the inhabitants of the country, and does not disperse them into national sections. And until Navalny understands this, it’s better to remain a fighter against fur storage facilities, sawing and unfair housing and communal services tariffs. These are all important, necessary and harmless matters for the country.

But in my opinion, this politician is not fit to be the leader of the general democratic front. Temporary allies in some specific areas of activity - maybe. But that's all.

Perhaps this is for the best. It’s enough for us to group around leaders, it’s time to unite around ideas, programs and platforms. Somehow it is more reliable.

Grigory Shalvovich Chkhartishvili (born May 20, 1956, Zestafoni, Georgian SSR, USSR) - Russian writer, literary critic, translator, Japanese scholar. He publishes his literary works under a pseudonym.

Conversation with a politician

Alexey Navalny– the most prominent political figure of recent times. Let me express myself even more categorically: he is the only relevant politician in today’s Russia. Many glances are turned to this person - admiring, hating, critical, perplexed.

The evolution of my attitude towards Alexei Navalny very typical. At first I liked him unconditionally, because it was a very beautiful story: a young lawyer who, alone, acting exclusively by legal methods, challenges a gigantic corrupt system - and forces it to tuck its tail between its legs and back away.

Participation was a huge disappointment and an alarm signal for me. Navalny V " Russian march" Oh, this man is a nationalist? Or an unprincipled populist? Maybe he just has a mess in his head? Then, with its ever-growing popularity, it can be dangerous.

I kept looking closely at the young politician, thinking, like Bulgakov’s Sharik, that “this owl needs to be explained.”

During the preparation for the rally, we met, and I suggested holding a public conversation - in the form of correspondence, fortunately I already have experience in such communication: three years ago, in about the same way, I tried to “clarify” Mikhail Khodorkovsky.

Well, let's talk. Read and make your own judgement.

The conversation will be divided into three parts: what happened, what will happen and how the heart will calm down. Since I am very interested in your opinion and your reaction, I inserted “votes” into the text.

G.Ch.: Alexey Anatolyevich, many people in my circle and - much wider - of the same way of thinking today look at you with mixed feelings. They just can’t understand your belief system and decide for themselves how to relate to Navalny: “warmly-approve-and-support” or “stop-before-it-too-too”? To put it unemotionally: who are you for supporters of democratic ideology - a temporary ally until victory over a common enemy (fraudulent authoritarianism) or something more promising?

The main reason for this mistrust is connected with your commitment to the idea of ​​Russian nationalism, which the democratic intelligentsia strongly associates with the Black Hundreds. I know that you have repeatedly tried to clarify your position on this issue. Not enough. Let's try again.

Let's start with a “childish” question. If I understand correctly, you are a supporter of the idea of ​​a “national Russian state”? What is this in the conditions of a federation where a hundred different nationalities live, and in big cities the “mestizo” population almost predominates? Should all ethnically non-Russians or half-Russians feel like second-class citizens in your Russia?

A.N.: Grigory Shalvovich, to be honest, I did not expect such questions either from you or from the democratic intelligentsia from your circle. The democratic intelligentsia should, in theory, read newspapers and, if they are even slightly interested in my activities, then they should have a basic understanding of my political views. About the party " APPLE"know about the movement" Democratic alternative“, about current activities.

And your question is not childish, but offensive. You work and work, and then the “democratic intelligentsia” asks if I consider anyone a second-class citizen. There are no second-class people, and if someone thinks so, then he is a dangerous lunatic who needs to be re-educated, treated or isolated from society. In principle, there can be no talk of any restriction of the rights of citizens on the basis of ethnicity.

By the way, I myself am “half-Russian” - half-Ukrainian, and I don’t want to feel the least bit like a second-class person.

G.Ch.: Then what is a “Russian national state”? Or do you not agree with this slogan “ Russian march", in which you participated?

A.N.: I have never put forward such a slogan, but I will undoubtedly support him in his interpretation of the same Khodorkovsky: This is an alternative to attempts to build an empire out of Russia in the 19th century format. Such a thing is not viable in the modern world.

The source of power in a national state is the nation, the citizens of the country, and not the class elite, putting forward slogans of seizing half the world and global domination and, under this sauce, robbing the population marching towards the Indian Ocean.

We need the state to ensure comfortable and decent living for the citizens of this state, to protect their individual and collective interests. The nation state is the European path of development of Russia, our sweet, cozy, at the same time strong and reliable, European house.

This, by the way, is the main “nationalist” text that I signed. Manifesto of the PEOPLE movement. I still subscribe to every word.

G.Ch.: Well, I’m not ready to subscribe to every word in this document. For example, the idea of ​​every citizen having the right to own a pistol seems to me overly romantic given our realities. I have other questions regarding the provisions of the Manifesto, but okay, all these disagreements do not go beyond the scope of a normal working discussion. I understood the main thing - a thesis with which I will not argue: “The unity of the country, its power and prosperity will be strengthened only if we can ensure equality before the Law of all citizens, regardless of their ethnic origin, social status and territory of residence.”

Okay, let’s move on to the next “painful” question: Your attitude towards the breakup USSR? We are talking, therefore, about the notorious “imperial syndrome”.

Since as a child I was taught not to ask my interlocutor questions that I am not ready to answer myself, I will begin by stating my position.

I don’t feel sorry for the Soviet Union as a nuclear superpower and “one-sixth of the land”; I’m not nostalgic for that military-bureaucratic empire. However, in the cultural and economic sense, I am quite an imperialist. I would very much like the attraction of our culture, the strength of our economy and the enviable conditions of our life to encourage our neighbors to voluntarily seek commonwealth and alliance with us. I am for the restoration (and if possible, then for the expansion beyond the previous limits) of the sphere of Russian cultural and economic influence. But not under pressure, not under the threat of weapons or gas cuts, but out of love (this is about culture) and out of calculation (this is about economics).

What do you say? Do you feel sorry for the USSR? Brand the villains from Belovezhskaya Pushcha?

A.N.: Everyone wants their country to be bigger, richer, stronger. That's okay, I want that too.

Concerning USSR, then I was born in 1976, and although I remember our Soviet life well, I associate it with the line for milk in which I stand all the time. And this despite the fact that I lived in military towns, where supplies were better than in the rest of the country.

No need to be confused USSR and our idea of USSR, consisting of happy moments of childhood/youth/adolescence, as well as transmission Leonid Parfenov « The other day. Nowadays", mixed with songs Alla Pugacheva.

Greatness USSR was based on the self-denial and heroism of its citizens living in poverty. We built space rockets and passed on legends to each other about stores where there were forty varieties of sausage without a line. As it has now turned out, there are countries where there are both missiles and sausage.

USSR it was not the villains from Belovezhskaya Pushcha who destroyed it, but CPSU, Gosplan and the rogue Soviet nomenklatura. Representatives of this rogue nomenklatura signed a legal agreement on the end of the empire, which at that time did not exist de facto.

This is a historical fact. Another fact is that the core and basis Russian Empire And USSR was our country - Russia.

We have it, it remains the dominant state economically and militarily in the region. Our task is to preserve this and increase it.

There is no need to understand dominance in the region as a purely military aspect; in the modern world it is primarily a matter of economic development. If there is no powerful economy, there is no modern army either.

We see that our former neighbors USSR refocus on China, this happens for economic reasons.

We should not specifically plan any expansions - the task is to become strong and rich ourselves, then our neighbors will be in our zone of influence; they cannot move.

As for cultural influence, it is, of course, also connected with economics, but this matter is more subtle and irrational. If we talk about the state strategy, within the framework of which only simple things can be effectively promoted, then the main subject of our concern is the Russian language. As long as there are still people living in neighboring countries who speak Russian fluently, we have the tools of cultural influence. Unfortunately, the situation is changing; in the countries of Central Asia and the Caucasus there are already millions of young citizens who are either Russian or German.

This is the case when “tomorrow will be too late” - native speakers abbreviate naturally. We need to invest money in appropriate programs, this will be a useful investment, it will return to us with greater benefits.

G.Ch.: There is another “eternal” question that stubbornly does not lose its relevance, and, in general, it is clear why. (In fact, we are talking about the priority of the social-state structure: a person for the state or a state for a person?)

I mean the attitude towards the figure of a steely statist and a ruthless pragmatist Joseph Stalin. For me, he is the most terrible chapter in the textbook of Russian political history. What is it to you?

A.N.: Hitler And Stalin- two main executioners of the Russian people. Stalin executed, starved and tortured my compatriots, for me personally everything is clear here.

However, I am against this being an “eternal” issue and I don’t see any point in all this “de-Stalinization”, etc. I don't understand what this means in terms of public policy. If you want “de-Stalinization,” give it to your schoolchild to read.” Gulag Archipelago“, if he is too lazy to read “Archipelago”, then let him read the article “Stalinist repressions” on Wikipedia, everything there is short, understandable, objective and with links.

We need to independently respond to the challenges of the time, and not live by endless political allusions. “The Stalin Question” is a question of historical science, not current politics.

G.Ch.: I don’t agree. The ghost of an “effective manager”, under which “the State was Great”, needs to be buried very deeply and pierced with an aspen stake. Otherwise, he will crawl out of the grave again and again. But this is a topic for a separate big discussion. Now I want to ask you another question, which again combines history and political topicality.

I know that you are a believer, although you don’t show off your religiosity and don’t try to convert it into political capital. The question is not about faith, which is a personal matter for everyone, but about the church. How do you see the role of the Orthodox Church in modern Russian society? Are you satisfied with the current fusion of the patriarchy with the authorities? In general, what do you think the relationship between church and state should be like in Russia?

A.N.: There’s no need to pierce anyone, and you certainly can’t pierce a ghost, that’s why he’s a ghost. Myth about Stalin is a myth about iron order imposed by an iron hand. To debunk it, someone else must restore order without any iron hand, that is, simply according to the law.

This is quite possible and is happening successfully in many countries; it is necessary for the head of state to set moral and ethical guidelines and carry out official instructions, and not earn billions for neighbors in a dacha cooperative.

Church and religion: I, to my shame, am a typical post-Soviet believer - I keep fasts, I am baptized at church, but I go to church quite rarely. When my friends, laughing at my next “vegetable salad for me - now it’s Lent,” try to “troll” me and demand that I explain what exactly this or that post is dedicated to, they quickly put me in a dead end and tease me with “phony Orthodox , not familiar with the materiel." I’m actually less familiar with the hardware than I would like, I’m working on it.

I don’t think that my religiosity can be converted into political capital - it would look simply ridiculous. I don’t stick it out or hide it, it is what it is.

I believe, I like to be a Christian and Orthodox, I like to feel like I am part of something big and common. I like that there are special ethics and self-restraints. At the same time, it doesn’t bother me at all that I exist in a predominantly atheistic environment - until I was 25 years old, before the birth of a child, I myself was such an ardent atheist that I was ready to grab the beard of any butt.

It's normal for people to be religious, it's normal for some people to laugh at being religious. Jokes about religion in The Simpsons or South Park are perfectly fine and don't offend me in the least.

When we talk about the role ROC, then we need to highlight several axioms:

• We live in a secular state. Religion is separated from the state.
• No one can be discriminated against on the basis of religion.

Orthodoxy is the main religion of Russia and there is no need to deceive ourselves by trying to stand on positions of absolute equality. Special role ROC understandable and reasonable.

More than 80% of citizens consider themselves Orthodox (even if they don’t go to church). Christmas is a public holiday. It is clear that the attempt to give the Buddhists of Russia as much attention as the Orthodox is doomed to failure.

If Buddhists want to, then their religion and clergy should play a special role in places of compact and traditional residence of Buddhists - Kalmykia or Buryatia. It’s great that in Tatarstan and Bashkiria there are weekends associated with Islamic holidays.

However, we should not deny the obvious: the religion of Russia is Orthodox Christianity. Once again: this, in principle, cannot imply any discrimination. Restrictions on representatives of other faiths or atheists must inevitably be prosecuted by law.

The topic of “merging” patriarchy and power is a painful topic. Position ROC- all power is from God, they will support any power. We need to take this philosophically.

I don’t see any original recipes here, just the law. These relationships must be formalized. If anyone would like to support ROC through quotas on the supply of cigarettes, then the secular authorities must bring this official to justice in the prescribed manner. His “counterparty” in ROC let her do it herself ROC, discussing whether this is acceptable.

The other day I read an interesting article in Vedomosti, which described the experience of dictators peacefully leaving power. It is curious that almost everywhere the main mediator between the dictator and the protesters was the Church. Is this possible for us now? Hardly.

But I would really like it to ROC took such a position in society that all those in conflict would seek and accept her mediation.

Part 2. Year of the Dragon

G.Ch. Let's change the format of the conversation in this part. Let's exchange opinions about what the day (that is, the year) has in store for us. Let's compare our assumptions regarding the further course of events?

I am not a politician, it is not my function to develop strategies and offer an answer to the question “What to do?” Another thing is to guess “What will happen?” This is quite the writing part.

I think in 2012 Moscow(and generally speaking Russia), will become the most interesting and important place on earth. Just like a quarter of a century ago, during Perestroika, the eyes of the whole world will be turned here. The struggle of an awakened civil society against an authoritarian regime is a fascinating spectacle.

Two Russias will collide – “open” and “closed”, democratic and “arrestocratic”.

We will make full use of our natural weapons - openness, appeal to reason and decency, cheerful confidence in our rightness; the other side will also fight with whatever it can: provocations, special operations, underhand maneuvers and cheating.

We will advance, they will retreat. If Putin knew history, he would have used the ancient wise rule: “If you can’t stop the process, lead it.” Only in this case does the ruler have a chance to stay afloat - although not on the same conditions as before. However, I doubt that the “national leader” will have enough adequacy and courage for such a somersault.

He will probably, maintaining the pose of a real macho, always sacrifice something. Will start with trifles - for example, give up the switchman Churova. He'll look at how the people haven't calmed down? Oh no? Then he will release Khodorkovsky. What, are they still noisy? But I will promise to release under an amnesty two hundred thousand entrepreneurs, victims of raider attacks and corrupt ships. What, is this not enough for you?

He will be late all the time. Meanwhile, the protest movement will grow, cover the entire country, and take organized forms (this has already begun to happen). In addition to rallies and marches, new, previously unprecedented forms of civil protest will appear. And all the blows will fall exclusively on Vladimir Putin, because he is simultaneously the strongest and most vulnerable point of the regime.

The rest of the winter will pass under the slogan “ Let's take Putin for a ride", and to March 4 this movement will reach its apogee.

Only scraps will remain of Putin’s rating. Victory in the first round is completely out of the question. Main rival Putin The candidate who will clearly and clearly announce: “If you choose me, I will immediately dissolve the Duma and announce new elections.” In the second round, Putin will have no chance against such a candidate. Massive fraud in counting votes will be impossible, because millions of wary eyes will be watching the election commissions. And what's the point of cheating? You can't rule a country that doesn't want you. It is impossible to live and work in a capital that hates and despises you. Even if you declare yourself president a thousand times, you won’t be able to resist.

This is exactly what I think will happen.

Theoretically, of course, it is possible that Putin He will surprise everyone - he himself will promise to dissolve the Duma, carry out reforms, release all the “inmates”, etc., etc. But even if he promises, it’s not a fact that people will believe him.

Now tell me, to what extent do my forecasts coincide with yours?

A.N.: It seems to me that you have an overly romantic idea of ​​our revolutionary future. Putin knows history very well, and the rule “Lead the process in order to slow it down” has always been his true help in domestic politics.

I am sure that the Kremlin’s main strategy in the coming months will be to neutralize protest sentiments through traditional deception and bribery.

Instead of real political reform, we will be offered a system in which professional political activists will be comfortable enough to exist, and then we will need to create three competing liberal groups, a couple of nationalist groups, and a couple of leftists. Each micro-leader will be promised money, support and a little “access to TV”, hinting that he is the real promising liberal (nationalist), and the rest are blackguards.

All this political fuss will be actively covered in the press with the sauce “what a nightmare, a bunch of talkers. The worst signs of the '90s have come back to life."

We must soberly understand that for Putin and the Kremlin crooks, the task of exposing the “awakened civil society” as a bunch of grumpy, greedy madmen is the No. 1 issue in the matter of political survival.

We must be prepared for the fact that the work ahead of us will be largely dreary and nervous. Fun creativity risks turning into routine. Lively meetings lead to squabbles.

It’s not that I’m making things creepy - I’m just setting everyone up to the fact that “you have to be calm and stubborn,” as the famous song says. Then everything will work out.

I'm sure we can handle it.

I completely agree with the key message: we will advance, they will retreat.

The belief that any problem can be solved with tricks is likely to greatly harm the Kremlin. By offering fiction after fiction, they will seriously irritate people and ensure an influx of new participants in mass protests.

I’m not at all sure that they are ready to “surrender” Churova and, even more so, release Khodorkovsky. They will drag their feet with this swindler Churov to the end, to understand that his every appearance on the screen infuriates millions of people and delegitimizes the electoral process.

That is, everything will be exactly as in the joke: the Kremlin mice cried, injected themselves, but continued to eat the cactus. This is because they see the solution to the problem not in removing Churova, but in bribing some oppositionist or installing a webcam in his bathroom with subsequent broadcast to Lifenews with the headline “But look what the opposition is doing.”

All mechanisms available and familiar to the authorities for increasing (maintaining) their popularity will work for us, that is, reduce this popularity. Every move makes the situation worse. Of course, there are some strong things in stock, like starting a war with someone, but now there is no one to fight with.

Real major anti-corruption processes could improve the situation, but imprisonment of the Rotenbergs or Kovalchuks? Well, I do not, Putin It's easier to start a war.

I have said many times and continue to say: power Putin was based not on some kind of “siloviki”, but on the real support of the population.

During 12 years at the helm, he ate it up, exchanged it for a comfortable existence, for billions of dollars for his friends. He is still a popular politician, but not a national leader. With a rating of 40%, you cannot claim such a high-profile title.

Movement " Let's take Putin for a ride"(I completely agree - this is the main task, and the rest is a waste of resources) should reduce his rating to 30% in the country and 15-25% in the largest cities and thereby destroy the real base of his support.

The goal is quite achievable, taking into account even the official results " United Russia"in large cities.

We have mechanisms for this, activists too - there are a hundred thousand in the square, we need to improve the campaign infrastructure and the creativity/persuasiveness of the presentation.

The most important thing is that you don’t have to lie. Telling the hard and true facts about Putin, his billionaire friends, about the generals FSB, whose children SUDDENLY became state bankers, we will achieve our goal.

Slogan " United Russia - the party of Crooks and Thieves“went into life not thanks to some technology, but because it’s true.

Well, then our python Kaa will be faced with a choice: plausible elections with a humiliating “unboyish” second round or victory in the first round with “ the wizard Churov", observers thrown out of polling stations (of which there will be an order of magnitude more), video recordings of falsifications, etc.

Apparently this will be the second option and on March 5 the country will have a president who is not recognized by millions of citizens. A president whose power rests only on fake commission protocols. This one won't last long.

Output for Putin I see one - stop claiming an absolute monarchy. It is better to have an uneasy coalition government formed by the Duma, elected after a real political reform, than a cobblestone flying into the office window.

G.Ch.: Yes, I'm talking about the same thing. It just seems to me that events will happen more quickly, and the regime will fall apart faster than you say. A powerful catalyst will be the presidential campaign, which I am sure will Putin I’m no longer extremely happy.

I would like to ask what you think about the following actively discussed issue: can Putin, having realized that he is losing ground under his feet, move on to repressive measures? It seems to me that he does not have sufficient resources for this and that such a turn will only transfer the protest from a peaceful phase to a revolutionary one. Big Terror is impossible in modern Russian realities, and “little terror” will only add fuel to the fire. Yes or no?

A.N.: The peculiarity of ineffective regimes is that they are ineffective in everything. Including repression. That is, of course, they can fabricate criminal cases and imprison any specific person for an arbitrarily long term. Ten people.

They can hire football fans to organize an attack, as they did before.

But repression of relatively large groups of people is unlikely - it is not so easy to coordinate and administer. This is not a show on Channel One to entertain.

Repressive measures require the involvement of a large number of repressive individuals with a specific motivation. A system is needed, but it doesn’t exist.

Even in the example of the second case Khodorkovsky, on which all available resources were thrown, we saw how unconvincing it looks, how many mistakes were made. It all ended in a grandiose failure when the court secretary publicly stated that the decision was “brought down from above.”

Such clumsy (and others are impossible) actions against a large number of people will indeed lead to an escalation of protest, and aggressive protest at that.

This is not a speculative assumption - we are seeing something similar in Dagestan and Ingushetia.

Well, speaking about the possibility of repression, let’s once again remember the phrase Brzezinski, with which children in Russia are scared: in American banks there are $500 billion belonging to the Russian elite. Will you figure out whose elite it is – ours or yours?

Who will make decisions about repression? Finnish citizen, Russian oil trader Gennady Timchenko? British billionaires Abramovich And Usmanov?

It is unlikely that they will be enthusiastic about the idea of ​​​​suppressing dissent if this jeopardizes the opportunity to drink in peace, drink coffee in wonderful Italian restaurants and ride a boat Pelorus.

The American elite cannot organize repressions in Russia, for this they will no longer love you in Greenwich Village and Belgravia.

If you are a swindler-billionaire from Russia, then they laugh at you, but they allow you to buy football teams, and if you are a swindler and a murderer, then at least they will not give you a visa, and most likely they will send you a tax file, they also know how to do this there.

Remember how Ramzan Kadyrov's horse withdrawn from horse racing in the USA? So here it is Abramovich doesn't want to become a horse Putin, which is not allowed to graze on the slopes of Aspen, and political decisions in the country are made by him and others like him.

Most likely, the repression plan will consist of two traditional things:

1) attempts to legally limit the possibility of disseminating information on the Internet through “anti-extremist” legislation and the like;

2) allocating new sums of money to create a “pro-Kremlin Internet” with its own public opinion leaders, whose roles will be played by long-known characters from the media service.

Both the first and second will not work, but they will terribly irritate everyone and join the ranks of protesters.

G.Ch.: How do you like the increasingly popular idea that it is necessary to create a single election headquarters not for some opposition candidate, but for “ Anti-Putin Headquarters“—and entrust him with coordinating protest actions during the election campaign? It's real? Effective?

A.N.: Such a headquarters already exists, and you and I even attended its meeting, it took place December 24 on Sakharov Avenue. There were about 100 thousand members of the headquarters, they gathered under openly anti-Putin slogans and were full of desire to spread these slogans in order to drive the leader out of the Kremlin Party of Crooks and Thieves.

I don’t think we need another headquarters, more compact or professional.

If there is a headquarters where the police, sanitary and epidemiological station or firefighters can come, then they will come there - don’t doubt it. If there are huge circulations of centrally printed propaganda products, they will be arrested under any pretext.

If there is a leader of the headquarters on whom everything is tied, then the leader can be arrested, intimidated or bribed.

Why take the risk?

These hundred thousand people are both the headquarters and the ideal propaganda machine, capable of conveying the necessary information to tens of millions of fellow citizens in a fairly short time.

You don’t need to use the word “propaganda”, it has too negative a connotation, it immediately comes to mind First channel. Our task is greatly simplified because we do not have to tell anything but the truth. You can call it the “Truth Machine” - it sounds ominous, even if the Kremlin crooks are afraid of it.

Each member of this multi-thousand-strong Machine must talk to a dozen acquaintances, send emails, post information on social networks. Nothing more is needed.

Gunvor And Ramzan Kadyrov; Putin's privatization in the interests Abramovich and real estate of officials in London; stealing Gazprom and the failure of national projects - these are the main achievements of the 12-year stay Putin Those in power themselves explain everything to voters.

We should simply disseminate the facts impartially.

I am sure that among us there are enough creative people who will be able to offer both the correct forms of presenting information and safe, decentralized and mass ways of conveying it.

By the way, there is no need to get hung up on Putin. “Anti-Putin Headquarters” is wrong. Headquarters "Anti-Rogue and Thief". Putin leader of the gang, now he is trying to distance himself from the political form of organization of the crooks - the party " United Russia"We won't let him do it.

Party of Crooks and Thieves nominated its candidate for president - the main Rogue and Thief. We are fighting not only this thief in law, but also his nasty henchmen. This is how we should treat it, and this is how voters will treat it.

G.Ch.: One way or another, the Year of the Dragon will not only be extraordinary, it will be historical. It is clear.

In the third and final part of the dialogue, let's talk about what all this is for. Not about “we will destroy the world of violence to the ground,” but about “then”: “we are ours, we will build a new world” what? To what extent do our views on a “correctly structured” Russia coincide? And most importantly, let’s see what the range of opinions on this matter is among our readers.

Part 3. Big renovation

G.C.: In the third and last part of the dialogue, let's talk about what all this is for. Not about “we will destroy the world of violence to the ground,” but about “then.” “We are ours, we will build a new world” what? To what extent do our views on a “correctly structured” Russia coincide? And most importantly, let’s see what the range of opinions on this matter is among our readers.

This blog post is too small to outline or even outline the country's reconstruction program, but at least let's try to identify priorities.

What problems of the country do you consider the most pressing, requiring immediate “repair”? There is no need to list everything, otherwise we will get bogged down. Let's say only five. But first priority.We will proceed from the fact that the country has already held fair elections and elected a legitimate parliament and president. What to tackle first?

Let's see if my “five” matches yours.

1. Make Russia a parliamentary (not presidential) republic; limit one person's tenure in power to two five-year terms with no possibility of future election. For a country with a traumatic experience of dictatorial and authoritarian regimes, this precaution seems necessary to me.

2. Radically change personnel and operating principles law enforcement. In their current form, they are ineffective and discredit the state. I don’t know how to approach this problem practically, I’m not an expert. But it is clear that “cleaning” must occur from top to bottom - the fish rots from the head.

3. Raise prestige judicial system, which suffered terrible reputational damage during the Putin years. To do this, it is necessary to punish especially dirty judges and significantly update the composition of the judiciary.

4. Prohibit, under penalty of criminal liability, interference by representatives of the executive branch in editorial policy and the actions of the media. Democracy will not function properly if the press is dependent on the state.

5. Carry out a normal army reform. As it stands, the country appears poorly protected from potential threats. It is necessary to make the army completely professional, high-tech, and military service a prestigious and enviable specialty. And it is not the current generals who should be engaged in reform.

"Five", of course, is not enough. And “ten” will not be enough. I am sure that readers will significantly add to the list in the comments. But now the floor is yours.

A.N.: Before talking about the five areas of “repair”, we need to talk about the basic idea on which “repairers” should rely. We have a lot of teams, each with its own work plan, but nothing works out.

I am deeply convinced that people who came to the new government through elections should not rely on ideological dogmas, but follow moral standards, believe in people and common sense.

I am convinced that people are capable of making independent, correct decisions, and you should trust them, and not impose some “correct” agenda from above.

And not just any people in general, but very specific, living citizens of Russia. The main slogan of all reforms at the moment must be considered: “ Don't lie or steal ».

Dismantling the existing corrupt, authoritarian, senseless and ineffective model is not a matter of one day or a year. But I have no doubt that if we have 20, or better yet 50, senior government officials in our country who are guided by this principle, then the changes will be rapid and very noticeable.

This is the only realistic way.

Let's get down to specifics:

1. The creation of a judicial system comes first, this is obvious. No other reforms simply can be implemented without its creation. The fight against corruption will not work. No new parties will help, and newly elected governors will be just as bad.

Please note: “creation”, not reform or, especially, “raising prestige”. Here I categorically disagree with you in the wording. You cannot raise the prestige of something that does not exist. How to raise prestige Judge Borovkova? These people are not judges at all, but a “cleaning department.” The government and society treat them this way, and they recognize themselves as such.

Human society needs a fair mechanism for resolving disputes. There must be a place where conflicting groups will judge, where it is possible to achieve justice.

If there is no such place in the country, then there will be nothing else. 70% of judges now are former employees of the secretariat of the courts. The rest are mainly from police officers and prosecutors. These are people who are relatively trained in procedural matters, but at the same time, the administration of justice is understood as the execution of the will of their superiors. They haven’t seen anything else, they don’t understand how to work differently.

Judges must be a bastion of the law, but also a bastion of ethics, morality and ethics. “He is a judge” must be pronounced with respect and reverence. And now they are being discussed in the context of “hey, you bought a new jeep with a salary of 80 thousand.” The independence of judges, their electability (even magistrates and district judges), a full-fledged jury trial and the Constitutional Court, let's face it, all these are the real enemies of the current government.

If you look carefully at your five points, you will understand that the implementation of any of them will immediately come across issues of court and justice, this is where you need to start.

2. Power reform. You can call this constitutional reform, if you like. Constitution of the Russian Federation must be changed in such a way as to make it impossible to reproduce autocracy in the country: kings, general secretaries, presidents. No one in Russia, neither a party nor a person, should have a monopoly on power.

Yeltsin used this constitution to usurp power and use himself and his family for a comfortable existence. Now Putin is doing the same, fabulously enriching loyal clans.

Local authorities must make key decisions in everyday life: from funding the local school and hospital to banning smoking in public places; from the amount of sales tax to local law enforcement issues (local police, domestic crime, etc.); from the size of fines for violating traffic rules to the color of building facades and tiles on the roofs of houses.

I don’t see the slightest problem that the rules of local life will differ significantly in Moscow and Vladivostok. In Makhachkala, topless sunbathers will be fined, in Yekaterinburg it will be prohibited to park on the left side of the streets, and in Nizhny Tagil it will be prohibited to sell vodka within the city. The country is big - everything has its own specifics.

I would like to draw your attention to the fact that it is not our dubious governors who need to be given more power, but the level below: mayors, city and village councils. This, among other things, reduces the likelihood of separatism, which has become a political bogeyman - there will be no regional kings, whom everyone is so afraid of.

To prevent the emergence of local, city kings, it is necessary to absolutely exclude the possibility of political manipulation: postponement of elections, extension/reduction of powers, refusal and deregistration of candidates, controlled election commissions and other technical tricks, perfectly mastered by our bureaucrats.

If a conflict has arisen at the local level that cannot be resolved locally, see point one: everyone goes to court, and a federal judge determines how it should be.

Government reform should mean returning to citizens the right to decide their own fate and the fate of their city. It is necessary to restore and simplify the institution of direct democracy (referendums) at the municipal level, and restore the principle of electing mayors and governors.

The issue of censorship and interference with work mass media, which you write about, relates to government reform. It's obvious that mass media is not just a business, but also a vital social function. Censorship is still formally prohibited; you just need to return the words to their meaning.

To be imprisoned for censorship and stop lists is not the most complex criminal offense. It is also necessary to punish custom paid articles, especially those containing political defamation. Disqualify journalists, editors and owners mass media both for censorship and for “ordering”.

Seriously limit both the state and the oligarchs in their ability to own media, and at the local level: a local oligarch, the owner of an enterprise of regional importance, should not be able to buy up all local newspapers.

3. Law enforcement reform. The most important thing, but in many ways derivative in relation to the creation of the judicial system.

The problems here are the same: in fact, there is not a single law enforcement agency in the country - the entire system is configured to protect thieves and swindlers from taxpayers. What good is it if half the country is in uniform if Russia is one of the three countries where the most murders are committed (UN data). Let there be 100 times fewer police officers, but they will protect citizens, and not cook up custom-made criminal cases.

We need a cardinal, and not a cosmetic reform a la Medvedev Ministry of Internal Affairs And FSB.

It’s clear how to approach this: there are many examples, both positive and negative. Both completely new (Georgia) and with a long history (USA, Hong Kong, Singapore).

4. Nationwide anti-corruption campaign. It is clear that its elements are objectively contained in the paragraphs “judicial system” and “law enforcement reform,” but this must be a meaningful, substantive anti-corruption campaign. So that society can see and feel it. With demonstrative (but fair) trials and imprisonments. With the uprooting of all these seedlings, which have grown with one foot into Gazprom, and the other in FSB.

With the restructuring of economic and political relationships that gave rise to “warm places”. With a radical limitation of the distribution function of the bureaucracy and the imprisonment of those who have already abused this function.

With the inevitability of punishment, so that every citizen of the country knows for sure: in Russia people are imprisoned for bribes, and the words “law and order” are not an abstraction.

This, you know, “hot iron mode ON”

These are the main things that I think are very important to say at the very beginning of our conversation. But please understand that, in general, ranking problems by their importance seems pointless to me. This will sooner or later lead us to a primitive discussion: what comes first - accessible and high-quality education for everyone or a combat-ready and effective army?

From my point of view, the creation of a judicial system that fairly resolves conflicts between citizens and groups and the political reform of government will provide the ground on which our state can be built in the modern world.

Let's discuss other issues without unnecessary rating.

G.Ch.: Now “rating” is needed not in order to solve some pressing problems in the first place, but some in the second and third. Our dialogue is an invitation to public discussion. And most of all I (and I’m sure you) are interested in the opinions of the people who read this. Since you are a politician, you need to know what problems people consider a priority. Therefore, I propose this. We both spoke. Now we will give the readers the opportunity to have their say.

The capabilities of LiveJournal allow you to insert up to 15 points into the “vote”. You and I have a total of six so far (I still insist that guarantees of independence mass media is a separate issue from constitutional reform). I’ll add four more problems that I didn’t fit into the Top 5, although they are incredibly important. I leave you with four more points. There is no need for argumentation, otherwise our post will become gigantic. Quite simple enumerations. And we will leave one position empty.

So my contribution:

Health care reform. This is without comment, right?

Pension reform. Old people shouldn't be beggars. This is a shame for the country.

Moving away from the “commodity” economy.

Revival and development scientific potential of the country. Without this, the previous point is impossible.

Now you add.

A.N.: Okay, then in “telegraph style” in addition to what you have already indicated.

Deregulation and debureaucratization. Eliminate archaic or corrupt rules and procedures. In New Zealand, a building permit is obtained in a week; in our country it takes two years. To attribute travel expenses to cost, you still need to put a stamp on your travel certificate!

Optimization of state property management, primarily through first-class corporate governance standards in companies under government control and influence. We have companies under state control - this is 53% of the market capitalization for the top 90 largest companies and everywhere there is a monstrous mess and theft. The use of long-established rules and procedures will significantly improve the situation in a short time.

Orderly migration instead of illegal migration. Cancellation of mandatory registration in other regions for citizens of the Russian Federation, a ban on discrimination based on place of residence or registration for citizens of the Russian Federation. At the same time, the introduction of a visa regime for the countries of Central Asia, where the largest number of illegal migrants comes from. Do you want to come to work? Please: permit, insurance, visa, guaranteed minimum wage.

Returning education (secondary, vocational and higher) to the function of a social elevator. We have a university wherever you spit. Everyone walks around with higher education diplomas, which are worthless. Where you studied and how you studied does not mean anything. The diploma that is put on the wall should have a price, not in the sense of the size of the bribe for admission, but in the sense that you had to fight for it, but it also gives a lot.

G.Ch.: Well, now it remains to see what kind of “repair plan” for the country the readers propose. Vote, speak out, add points and problems. Let's develop a program together.

On my blog, only community members can comment " Noble Assembly", but to the blog Alexei Navalny Free admission. I also hope that the site " Echo of Moscow» will reprint this part of the dialogue after the previous two. You can speak out there too.

Love of history (online version) part 11 Akunin Boris

About Alexei Navalny and the “Russian March”

In August, during the Moscow election campaign, I strongly supported the candidacy of Alexei Navalny, but wrote that I had questions for him that I would definitely ask if the regime did not throw him in prison.

Actually, I had only one serious complaint against Navalny: his penchant for nationalist rhetoric and, in particular, his attitude towards the notorious “Russian March”. For me, participation in the “Russian March” is a sign of professional incompetence for a person claiming to be the leader of the democratic opposition. Translated into actual language, my question to Navalny would mean: “Are you fit to be our leader or not?”

I asked Navalny a question about nationalism and the “Russian March” some time ago - in writing and suggested that he answer publicly. He said that even without me he was going to write a special text on this topic: wait, they say, you’ll find out everything from there.

Okay, I waited.

Its meaning is this: Navalny will not go to the Russian March, but in general he warmly approves of this action. Calls on everyone not to doubt, but to go and march.

Well. It turns out that I was mistaken in believing that nationalist nonsense was a youthful illness for Alexei Navalny, from which he had already recovered. I didn't get sick. And this means (at least for me) that this person has not yet grown into a politician at the all-Russian level. Maybe with time. He has the ability to do this, but abilities alone are not enough.

Sorry to have to repeat elementary truths, but in a country where many nations live, any political movement with an ethnic bias is fraught with pogroms, or even the collapse of the country. Russia needs something diametrically opposite: a common cause, a common project, a common goal - something that unites all the inhabitants of the country, and does not disperse them into national sections. And until Navalny understands this, it’s better to remain a fighter against fur storage facilities, sawing and unfair housing and communal services tariffs. These are all important, necessary and harmless matters for the country.

But in my opinion, this politician is not fit to be the leader of the general democratic front. Temporary allies in some specific areas of activity - maybe. But that's all.

Perhaps this is for the best. It’s enough for us to group around leaders, it’s time to unite around ideas, programs and platforms. Somehow it is more reliable.

From the comments to the post:

Akunin about Navalny: “I feel his inclination towards the Dark Side of the Force... He has not completed his training yet...”

From the book Apocalypse of the 20th century. From war to war author Burovsky Andrey Mikhailovich

MARCH TO MILAN In July - August 1922, real street battles between anarchists and fascists took place in Parma, Bari and a number of other cities. The number of those killed varies, but in any case, “more than a hundred.” Supporting “our own people,” on August 1–4, the socialist Labor Union held a General

From the book Daily Life of the Russian Army during the Suvorov Wars author Okhlyabinin Sergey Dmitrievich

Attack from the spot! March-march! While we were lined up, regimental commander Chicherin himself went to General Fersen for orders, and from there he gallops and, before reaching there, commands: “Mr. Depreradovich, receive the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th squadrons - and from the place attack!" Depreradovich repeated: “With

From the book Crusades. Medieval Wars for the Holy Land by Asbridge Thomas

The march begins The main forces of the crusaders left Acre on Thursday, August 22, 1191. To eliminate debauchery in the army, Richard ordered that all women be retained in Acre, although an exception was made for older pilgrims "who washed clothes and

From the book “For land, for freedom!” Memoirs of a comrade-in-arms of General Vlasov author Kromiadi Konstantin Grigorievich

March of the ROA The firmaments recede, the grass slopes downwards, Then platoons of Volunteers from the ROA follow the platoon. Step straighter and firmer, chest forward, tighter rows. We will make our way, Where no traces have been made. The coming day is bright for us, Even if the paths are winding, Each one has outlined for himself, With

From the book Russian Revolt Forever. 500th Anniversary of the Civil War author Taratorin Dmitry

Russian March of Citizen M It is characteristic that Patriarch Hermogenes, whose fiery messages prompted the Nizhny Novgorod residents to start militia No. 2, called for no future entering into an alliance with the Cossacks. This was what guided Minin and Pozharsky, who were extremely wary of

by Crofts Alfred

NORTHERN MARCH Nationalist forces advanced north from Canton in July 1926. They had almost no heavy weapons, but they trusted their commander Chiang Kai-shek, his staff of military-trained officers and Russian strategists. "Iron Army"

From the book History of the Far East. East and Southeast Asia by Crofts Alfred

"The Long March" If Chiang Kai-shek could not rid the country of foreign attack, he decided in the winter of 1933/34 to put an end to the internal threat. His fifth campaign against the communists was overseen by German military advisers. He introduced martial law in all Soviet regions,

From the book The Persian Campaign of Peter the Great. The lower corps on the shores of the Caspian Sea (1722-1735) author Kurukin Igor Vladimirovich

The march to Derbent Veterani arrived at the camp only on August 2, 1722, but the horses had to be given rest. On the 5th, leaving 300 soldiers and 1,500 Cossacks in the Agrakhan retranchement (the tsar ordered to take 600 horses from them), the army moved south along the sea coast; "on this campaign

There will be no Third Millennium from the book. Russian history of playing with humanity author Pavlovsky Gleb Olegovich

32. Fugitives from power form power. Russian as a person drawn into power. Russian World and Russian humanity - Who creates Russia from Muscovite Rus'? People who escaped from serfdom to freedom as Cossacks. - Russian conquistadors? - They are not conquistadors, but

From the book Mazepa's Shadow. Ukrainian nation in the era of Gogol author Belyakov Sergey Stanislavovich

From the book The Genius of War by Kutuzov [“To save Russia, we must burn Moscow”] author Nersesov Yakov Nikolaevich

Chapter 14 March March!! To the west!!! Meanwhile, Kutuzov's Podolsk army, in conditions of autumn bad weather, had already reached the city of Teshen in 28 days, having traveled from Radziwillov a total of 700 versts (the speed of movement was 23–26 versts per day). But then it turned out that the gofkriegsrat

From the book Russian Explorers - the Glory and Pride of Rus' author Glazyrin Maxim Yurievich

Great Russian sculptor. Head of the Union of Russian People. Russian nationalist Vyacheslav Mikhailovich Klykov (1939–2006), great Russian sculptor, People's Artist of Russia, President of the International Foundation for Slavic Literature and Culture, Chairman of the Main Council

From the book of the Commander's Spogadi (1917-1920) author Omelyanovich-Pavlenko Mikhail Vladimirovich

Section IV March of the Kiev Volyn Division. - Zustrich of the headquarters colony with a brigade of red lots. - Attack of the red coin on our headquarters. - March Colony Regiment. Dubovoy. - Kotsuri’s attack on the 3rd Cavalry Regiment As a special feature in the first half of the fierce need to reinforce,

From the book Dance of Freedom author Pashkevich Ales

From the book The Case of Bluebeard, or Stories of People Who Became Famous Characters author Makeev Sergey Lvovich

March of the Doomed Russian military specialists, doctors and volunteer fighters arrived in South Africa, although not the first, but were among the last to leave. After returning home, everyone who was officially in the Transvaal was awarded: military agents and engineers were promoted to

From the book On Thin Ice author Krasheninnikov Fedor

The Navalny effect Alexey Navalny turned out to be the first politician in Russia who caught all the trends mentioned above and was able to use them all. Over several years of hard work, he formed a significant layer of his supporters. It cost him colossal personal

On November 4, another nationalist rally called “Russian March” will take place in Moscow and other regions of Russia. This year, famous blogger and anti-corruption activist Alexei Navalny joined its organizing committee, which caused a flurry of criticism from his supporters among liberals. Lenta.ru found out from Navalny why he is going to the Russian March and why he does not want to feed the Caucasus.

"Lenta.ru": Alexey, why are you going to the "Russian March"?

The one where you compare nationalists with carious monsters...

This is an important video...

Don’t you consider those with whom you share the podium, at the same Caucasian rallies, and even at the “Russian March”, to be carious monsters?

Of course, I don’t count those who come to the podium. There are different people. As I already said, let’s just say that a large number of marginalized people and people who run around with these notorious Sieg Heils are a direct consequence of the fact that the nationalist movement does not have the opportunity to exist in a legal field. Where a huge existing ideology, I emphasize, peaceful and normal, is suppressed, there, naturally, radicals and outcasts come first, because only they can survive. A person who wants to meaningfully discuss the problems of budget distribution, if “Center E” starts running to his house, will spit and stop doing it. A person who is looking everywhere for a Jewish conspiracy, when Center E comes to him, will become even more convinced of the existence of a Jewish conspiracy and will organize some kind of group around himself that will eventually kill someone. And deliberate government policy in this area is bearing fruit. That is, the movement has been marginalized for a long time. Therefore, I, among other things, see my task as clarifying the position, identifying and working with normal leaders of the nationalist movement.

Wait, did you listen to or read the speeches of the same Alexander Belov? The last speech, perhaps, was more or less restrained, but before he said all sorts of other, not so innocent things.

You see, I look at what people are saying now. I talked to Belov a million times. How many times have I talked to him, he says absolutely the right things. I heard his public speeches on Echo of Moscow, at rallies and so on. Different people at different periods of their biography said some stupid things. I also said nonsense. Belov and I organized the conference “New Political Nationalism”. They adopted, among other things, a political declaration that said absolutely correct, acceptable things for me, and, I think, absolutely acceptable things for you and for any other normal person.

Therefore, there are two approaches: either I discuss something with Belov, together with everyone, and listen to what they are saying now and what political declarations they have now, and make a decision, or I drop all this and start searching in the Google cache, what Belov said God knows where in God knows what year.

Moreover, they are discriminated against precisely on ethnic grounds. Because there is not a single person who lobbies their interests, who would stand up and say: “But we want! Okay, you are speaking for the Chechens, so that we return some money to them or give them additional money. Let’s discuss this!” And who are the people who will come out and say: “And give them back the money! Let’s discuss this too!” - there is no such person. There is no such group.

So you want to say that young people come to the “Russian March” demanding compensation for the Russians expelled from Chechnya?

Ilya, I want to tell you that most people who perceive these problems emotionally cannot formulate them the way, for example, I can say them. This is generally a feature of any rally. That's why I come for this. I believe that the political prerequisites for holding the “Russian March” lie in this, among other things. And the fact that there, of course, there are some teenagers or 15-year-old fans who run around and shout “Sieg Heil!” - they exist, of course. You ask them about something, but they won’t be able to formulate anything. But these are children, they need to be put in a corner or explanatory work done with them.

Well, at the last rally on October 22, you shouted to these children: “We are the majority.” What does it mean?

This means that my views on these problems are shared by the majority of citizens of the Russian Federation. And the majority of citizens of the Russian Federation will say with me that there is no need to pour such money into Dagestan and Chechnya if we do not get any results. The majority of citizens of the Russian Federation will say with me: we do not want to finance the construction of a Sharia army in Chechnya. The majority of citizens of the Russian Federation will say: we want to introduce visa entry with the republics of Central Asia. The whole country is discussing this, but only in the government they are not discussing it and in the Duma they are not discussing it. Well, then this issue is discussed on the street, and on the street, of course, it all tends to be discussed in this way: “Let’s break everyone in.”

Do you think that a visa regime should be introduced with the countries of Central Asia?

Yes. And I don’t see anything radical in this proposal. Americans voted for a wall with Mexico. Obama voted to build a wall with Mexico. And we are afraid to introduce entry visas.

What should we do with the Caucasus in general? If we stop feeding him, what will happen next?

What does it mean to stop feeding him? All budget funds must be distributed evenly. And the Caucasian republics should receive budget funds based on real needs and the ability to somehow absorb these funds. First of all, you need to obey the law. What do you mean, what to do? Do what the instructions say.

The problems that you voiced will not be solved after the money begins to be distributed in the correct way.

Solving any problem begins with discussion. In our current political situation, all these things are not considered problems. The authorities do not think that this is a problem, but I do, and I am going to the “Russian March” to say that this is a problem and I demand its solution. And I demand its discussion and decision. There are different views: there are people who agree with me, there are people who disagree with me, they write articles about it. But everyone thinks this is a problem.

And only the swindlers who sit in the Kremlin and in the White House do not consider this a problem. What do you expect, that at the “Russian March” a 50-page report on what we should do with the Caucasus will be directly discussed and written on paper? No, that won't happen. At democratic rallies, they also don’t write programs for the country’s development.

600 people came to your rally, despite the fact that you invited everyone on your blog. Didn't that upset you?

No. Firstly, this is some kind of legend issued by someone unknown, as if if I invite someone on my blog, then a billion people will respond to this. By and large, my LiveJournal is simply a means of conveying information. And the fact that an entry appeared in it does not mean that a huge number of people will come out, and such a task is not worth it. Of course, if there were more people it would be better. But I didn’t have any romantic illusion that the blog was a tool for bringing thousands of people to the streets. How much came out - so much came out.

Are you not embarrassed by the disappointment, dissatisfaction of some more liberal part of your supporters who liked the activities of RosPil and RosYama?

When I went to the first “Russian March”, there was no “RosPil” yet. I'm talking about problems. And whatever political views I have, these are what I have. I am not going to change my political views because some of the wonderful people from Mayak believe that RosPil is good and nationalism is bad. If someone disagrees with me - like you, for example, I will patiently explain, which is what I do.

You periodically cite Le Pen as an example.

I cite Le Pen as an example of the fact that there is a completely respectable and legal politician in Europe, whose rhetoric, again, is much harsher than the rhetoric of the DPNI on some issues. And nothing happened in France as a result of this terrible thing.

Do you think he's respectable?

Excuse me, he exists legally, he made it to the second round. Yes, he is a respectable politician, of course. A huge number of people vote for him, naturally. He is a real politician there. Why shouldn’t I consider him respectable?

Can we say that you consider Le Pen a role model for yourself?

I don’t consider Le Pen a role model, because Le Pen is not applicable to the Russian experience. Let's just say that this is an irrelevant example in order to transfer it to Russian soil.

It’s just that in Europe, in my opinion, there are no gangs like the gang that kill 30 people.

How can this not happen? Tell me, are there neo-fascists in Germany? Yes, they are regularly arrested there. Look, go online and Google extreme right-wing groups in America. Yes, these are some kind of hellish freaks! Michigan militia, damn it. These are armed groups that number thousands of people and regularly carry out murders. This is just a completely wrong opinion. There are groups of radicals, ethnic and religious, in all countries. And in Russia they exist.

If we return to the Caucasus, do you think it might be better to separate it?

In your opinion, is Chechnya now part of Russia?

I think so.

But it seems to me that no.

Legally it is.

De jure - yes, but de facto is it part of Russia? Are there Russian courts and Russian laws? Now we have only one thing in common with Chechnya: the single currency that we are delivering to them there will soon be sent through a pipeline, that’s all. Now, rather, the conversation should be that Chechnya and the Caucasian republics should not only formally, but actually become part of Russia. The question here is that we must streamline some of our relationships, and there should be one right, one attitude towards people of any nationality, and not the construction of just some strange ethnic authoritarian state that is happening now in Chechnya.

So there is no talk of separation?

I don't know where this topic comes from. Do we have two alternatives - either simply pour money on them and enrich all these local buys ad infinitum, or immediately separate them? No, there is no such alternative. With the republics of the North Caucasus, it is apparently necessary to introduce - especially if the situation there worsens as the civil war develops - some additional administrative regulations that already exist. Are there checkpoints everywhere? They are standing. Only now I would like some strange people with weapons in their hands who roam from Chechnya to the Stavropol region, because for some reason they are considered the Chechen police, and not just bandits, which they are, not to roam. Therefore, let there be control over the movement of people and goods at the administrative border, which will regulate all these things.

The Caucasus still exists as something separate. It is no longer part of the country. Well, let's say that it is, it is not part of the country. There’s this problem: some weirdos with guns are running from there, coming to hang out in Pyatigorsk and shoot at the ceiling there. If a police unit is officially created in Pyatigorsk to combat policemen coming from Chechnya - well, excuse me, where to go next...

The root of most of the problems that you describe is in many ways not even the Caucasus, but the current government, which indulges...

The solution to the Caucasus problem lies in the Kremlin, naturally.

Why then focus on the Caucasus issue at all, and not the Kremlin one?

There is no need for any restrictions here, especially hypocritical restrictions. There is Putin, there is Kadyrov. We must discuss both Putin and Kadyrov. Kadyrov is a person who every day commits some offenses, crimes and behaves in a completely unacceptable way. Therefore, of course, it is necessary to discuss this as well.

You complain that there is no platform for discussing these problems, that they are not discussed in the Duma. But the “Socialist Revolutionaries” called you to their list?

Nobody negotiated with me. How do you know, tell me, I’m just curious.

I did not negotiate with Gennady Gudkov, I have never seen him in my life. I saw his son Dima, but he did not conduct any such negotiations with me. Nobody invited me, and I think everyone understands my position regarding inclusion on the lists. I think that my campaign, which is carried out in a partisan way for any party against United Russia, works for all small parties. Therefore, I think that in this capacity I am much more useful to all parties than on their lists. Why would normal people negotiate with me? They don't want to hear my no.

Image caption Alexei Navalny has attended “Russian marches” since 2007

Opposition politician Alexei Navalny said he will not participate in the Russian March nationalist march, which will take place in Moscow's Lyublino district on November 4.

In his blog, he explained that he felt a great burden of responsibility after the elections for the mayor of Moscow, in which he took second place.

At the same time, Navalny said that he still supports the idea of ​​the “Russian March” and called on those who are close to the goals of this action to come to it.

Navalny has attended these rallies since 2007, but missed the Russian March last year, citing the flu.

The oppositionist's sympathies for nationalists cause concern among some of his potential supporters.

This year, the organizers of the “Russian March” planned to gather 30 thousand participants, but the authorities approved the procession and rally with the participation of only 15 thousand people.

The procession of nationalists will take place against the backdrop of a great public outcry caused by the riots in Biryulyovo.

Political balance

“I still support the Russian March as an idea and as an event, I am ready to help with information or in some other way, but in the new situation I myself cannot participate,” Navalny wrote.

My participation in the Russian March will now turn into a hellish film comedy: like Boniface surrounded by children, I will walk in a crowd of 140 photographers and cameramen trying to film me against the backdrop of zigging schoolchildren Alexey Navalny, oppositionist

“After the Moscow elections, I feel a great burden of responsibility and must maintain that political balance, which allowed me (us) to get a significant result,” he added.

The politician also expressed concern that his appearance at the nationalist march could be misinterpreted by the media close to the state.

“My participation in the Russian March will now turn into a hellish film comedy: like Boniface surrounded by children, I will walk in a crowd of 140 photographers and cameramen trying to film me against the backdrop of zigging schoolchildren,” he wrote.

According to Navalny, he would not want efforts to discredit him to become the reason for discrediting the Russian March.

He also commented on the event's controversial reputation, noting that it "continues to be perceived by a wide range of voters as exotic, if not scary."

As the oppositionist writes, several years ago he hoped that the “Russian March” would become “a normal procession of conservative-minded citizens,” but this did not happen.

Against the background of Biryulev

According to the application, activists of right-wing organizations and their supporters will march along Pererva Street on November 4, after which a small rally and a rock concert of the popular nationalist group “Kolovrat” will be held in Lublin, several of whose works are considered extremist and are included in the “black list” of the Ministry of Justice .

Image caption Navalny said that he still supports the idea of ​​the “Russian March”, but noted that some of his hopes were not realized

The musicians plan to perform not these, but other compositions specially written for this year’s march.

"Russian Marches" have been taking place since 2005. As a rule, several thousand people take part in them in Moscow and St. Petersburg. In other cities, nationalist actions have always been quite small.

The organizers of the Russian March insist that they do not place ideological restrictions on who can participate in the rally, noting that along with Navalny, Moscow Mayor Sergei Sobyanin could also come there if he makes such a decision.

This year, the unregistered left-wing party “The Other Russia” will also take part in the “Russian March”. Supporters of Eduard Limonov will march in a separate column, and the organizers have set a condition for them to refuse red flags.

The National Bolsheviks stated that they made the decision to participate in the march against the backdrop of great public outcry caused by the events in Biryulyovo.

Mass riots, whose participants shouted nationalist slogans, occurred in Biryulevo in mid-October. The reason for them was the death of 25-year-old Yegor Shcherbakov, for which Azerbaijani citizen Orkhan Zeynalov is accused.

As a result, about 400 people were detained. Cases have been opened against four riot participants under the article “hooliganism.”