Yavlinsky about the investigation of Navalny. Signatures for Yavlinsky and Navalny's "terrible secret"

Grigory Yavlinsky is an informed independent politician who is able to give well-founded assessments. Of course, he is politically engaged, nevertheless, everything is known in comparison, I judge from the point of view of the interests of the grassroots subject, and the democratic party "Yabloko" positions itself as a spokesman for those. Yavlinsky knows Navalny well, who worked for him at his headquarters on Pyatnitskaya Street (I have been there, Navalny sat under huge posters of Khodorkovsky). Sunday's Moscow elections are the start of a new acute political cycle, politicians and parties are rushing to take strategic starting positions, trump-program cards are being used. Yavlinsky's harsh statements about Navalny yesterday provoked a variety of responses. Below I will cite not only them, but also the very interview of Yavlinsky, which he gave to Tikhon Dzyadko on Radio Ekho Moskvy. - Original taken from balance-seeker to "Guards - to the fire!"

Original taken from afranius to "Guards - to the fire!"

Echo of Moscow wets Navalny with Yavlinsky shaken from mothballs -- http://echo.msk.ru/programs/personalno/1148666-echo/
Fabulous, absolutely!
"Navalny is the destroyer of Russia, Navalny is a representative of large, oligarchic capital", yeah; to Sobyanin, ChSKH - no complaints.

No, it’s still cool to sausage THEM ALL - from Limonov to Yavlinsky!
Yes, for this alone Navalny could have been erected a monument; remember - in all the regional centers there were such small Lukichi, half a man's height, he-he-he ...

----------------
ABOUT! -- and Mitrokhin there too: http://echo.msk.ru/blog/serguei_parkhomenko/1150016-echo/

Some of these Apples were made quite some kind of unsanitary chatter, like "Fruit-Favorable" of my military youth, at 95 kopecks per bottle ...

Let's delve into the considerations-judgments of Grigory Alekseevich Yavlinsky, this is a kind of "document of the time", because with Navalny and Mitrokhin and some other figures and activists who declared themselves after December 2011, we now live a long time (aired by Echo of Moscow on September 4, 2013) :

T. DZYADKO: In Moscow, 20 hours and 6 minutes. Good evening, you are listening to the Ekho Moskvy radio station. At the microphone Tikhon Dzyadko, the program "Special Opinion". And I am glad to welcome Grigory Yavlinsky, politician, economist, one of the founders of the Yabloko party, to this studio. Good evening.

G. YAVLINSKY: Absolutely exactly. Hello. Glad to see you.

T. DZYADKO: Let me remind you of all our coordinates. +7-985-970-45-45 is the number for SMS messages. You can also send messages to Ekho Moskvy using Twitter if you write to the @vyzvon account, and using our website on the Internet www.echo.msk.ru. There, on the site, you asked questions before the broadcast. A lot of questions came, some of them will definitely sound today as part of this broadcast. And the broadcast will to a certain extent be devoted to upcoming events - these are the elections of the mayor of Moscow, which will be held on Sunday. But, probably, we will not only talk about Moscow, but also about the connection between the situation in Moscow and what is happening in the country as a whole.

But here is where I would like to start. Over the course of this election campaign, over the past few months, we have been witnessing two models. One model is that the mayor of Moscow is a politician and, to a certain extent, a political leader, one of the most important people in the country. This is stated by some of the candidates. Some of the candidates, in particular, Moscow Mayor Sergei Sobyanin, have repeatedly said that the position of Moscow Mayor is an economic position, and it has nothing to do with politics. Which of these models do you choose?

G. YAVLINSKY: Now, one second. Thank you very much, I would like to take the opportunity to be on Echo now and say a few words. A great misfortune has occurred in our party: one of our comrades, a very young man, Volodya Voronezhtsev, has died. We all express our deepest sympathy and condolences to his family, friends, and everyone.

T. DZYADKO: We are joining.

G. YAVLINSKY: Here. We are very sorry. I'm sorry for interrupting you. And now back to your question. Well, the question is very funny. He causes a smile because as soon as Sergei Semenovich says that he is a politician, Vladimir Vladimirovich will immediately remove him from the mayors of Moscow, and everything will end right there. Therefore, no matter what Sergei Semenovich thinks, no one, I think, even the Prime Minister, is allowed to say that he is a politician under the conditions of the system that was created under Vladimir Vladimirovich. Ask the prime minister. He will say: “Why are you asking me such questions? I, there, have to deal with Khabarovsk, there, or something else ... "

T. DZYADKO: Komsomolsk-on-Amur.

G. YAVLINSKY: Yes, Komsomolsky-on-Amur, there, I don't know, I have to do whatever you want, but I'm not a politician at all. Here we have one politician, and that's enough for us, there is nothing to disturb us here. Therefore, this is a question, it follows from the mess that is in the minds today.

T. DZYADKO: Well, if we talk about today's porridge. And if we talk about some objective reality, about how it should be?

G. YAVLINSKY: The objective reality, of course, is that the elected leader of a city of 12 million or 10 million, under all conditions, in any conditions, is, of course, a politician. But politics is a substantive category. That is, he must know what to do, he must really know the economy, he must know Moscow, he must understand it, he must understand it. He must, by the way, love her very much, he must be a man who walked her all the way once, who really knows her. Can you imagine when they come to a person, they say: there ... and they call ... I won’t name which avenue. There, some Dmitrovsky, right? Here. Something needs to be done there. And he doesn’t even know where this Dmitrovskoe highway goes, or where it is located, or where it all is, where it is. He makes a decision. How, what it is tied to, what kind of people live there, what neighborhoods are there, how it all works. The mayor of Moscow, he must be a major business executive, an intelligent specialist, especially in the city's economy. And he must also be a politician, otherwise he will not be able to solve his problems. Because…

T. DZYADKO: What is the political function of the Mayor of Moscow?

G. YAVLINSKY: And politically, the function of the mayor of Moscow is to be trusted by the people and together with them he could change Moscow. This is his political function, like any meaningful politician in general in the world, be it the president of the country or be it the mayor of Moscow. He addresses people, he addresses you, or to me, or to our listeners, he says something, and a significant part of people believe what he says, and build their lives based on the fact that they are together something they create. Well, for example…

T. DZYADKO: Yes.

G. YAVLINSKY: … there, I don't know, the general plan of Moscow is being discussed, right? Or the question of how to solve the key problems of the city is being discussed: there, for example, there is an increase in prices in the city, or migrants in the city, or something else, something else. This means that the meaning of a politician is that he convinces people of one or another of his decisions and decides this together with them.

T. DZYADKO: Good. And if we talk about the political role of the mayor of Moscow in the life of the country, right? Because it is obvious that the mayor of Moscow is a person who, well, not exactly governs, it would be wrong to formulate it this way ... or, although no, he governs the city in which he lives, there, one tenth or one ... one tenth of the population …

G. YAVLINSKY: In general, many, many.

T. DZYADKO: … of the population of the Russian Federation, right? This is the capital. In other words, a person who now, after September 8 or, if there is a second round, not after the 8th, but later, becomes the head of Moscow, becomes the mayor, if this is not a candidate from the ruling party, then what function does he begin to play in the country? We see two candidates have at least a slogan whose main message, therefore, is that Moscow is only the beginning, from Moscow to Russia. How does this link work?

G. YAVLINSKY: Well, look, first of all, the point is that Moscow, of course, today plays a very exaggerated political role, it has a very exaggerated political significance in the country. Generally speaking, one can argue, unfortunately, that everything that happens in the country depends on what happens in Moscow. In this sense, from the leader ...

T. DZYADKO: It has always been like this with us, by and large.

G. YAVLINSKY: Yes, but Russia has never been a democratic country. And now we are talking about making it so, right? To make it modern. Maybe the word "democratic" is used too often, but what do we want to do? We want... I'll come back to this topic if I have time. I'll be in a bit of a hurry today because I have a lot to say. Moscow must become a competitive city, and therefore a modern one. This means that generations, new generations of people want to live in Moscow, so that they do not leave. This is a very difficult fundamental task. And for this, Moscow must become a modern city. Well, this is what we are talking about.

So, today it performs, well, absolutely hypertrophied political functions both as a capital and not only as a capital. I'll give you at least one question. Look, if we return the opportunity to Moscow so that public political organizations exist here freely, so that people have the opportunity to hold rallies, demonstrations freely, so that people can speak in various media, even Moscow ones, but freely, so that this city is truly democratic, as it is been there for at least a short period of time. This energy will be of great importance. If local self-government is returned to Moscow, if local self-government is shown how it works, if Moscow is returned to local self-government or given to it (it probably never even had this) financial functions, to give them, so that they themselves could really begin to decide some questions… It's a huge thing, 12 million people. If Moscow becomes an example that this is a city where laws are enforced, this is a city where laws are the same for everyone, this is a city where a person feels protected, this is a city where property is not taken away, where there are rules that are not violated ...

T. DZYADKO: Is it possible for this to happen in Moscow, despite the fact that... so that it doesn’t happen, well, in the sense that property is not taken away, for example, in Moscow, despite the fact that this happens at the federal level? I don't know, in Yaroslavl, in Novosibirsk, in Lipetsk - anywhere.

G. YAVLINSKY: And this is very difficult to do. It is possible in the sense that it is possible to strive for this, it is possible for the mayor of Moscow to raise these questions. It is possible that the mayor of Moscow would submit such proposals to the federal level. It is possible that the mayor of Moscow will make these issues central to the discussion of the largest state issues. In this sense, he is a politician. He must bear them. What does the mayor say now? All is well, all is well. Well, most of the candidates say that everything is fine, well, some just steal. Then others say, there, that there is something else there, I don’t even know what they are saying. Here. But the point is that the system must be changed in principle, and not only, of course, in Moscow, but starting from Moscow, relying on Moscow, on the opinion of Muscovites. Start posing these questions step by step, making them debatable, forcing them to change. Can you imagine what kind of figure if he was elected by the city of 12 million? This is a major political figure. A lot really depends on him. No, there will be no magic wand here, and I am against confrontation between the city authorities, city authorities and federal authorities, as well as against any confrontation. But without such a movement forward, nothing can be changed at all. And elections are precisely the definition of the person who can do just that.

T. DZYADKO: Let's talk about elections and the definition of a person and return to the very beginning of this campaign. How do you explain to yourself the fact that the elections were called, that Sergei Sobyanin, therefore, announced that he was resigning early as mayor of Moscow and, accordingly, would take part in the election campaign? Why did this happen?

G. YAVLINSKY: Well, they just want the federal leadership, or, in other words, Vladimir Putin wants a more legitimate mayor of Moscow. Not just an official, but a person who, as it were, or actually elected by the citizens. Then it is easier to hold elections to the Moscow City Duma, here. In addition, our State Duma is something that its re-elections in general can not be announced today or tomorrow.

T. DZYADKO: Do you think that this could happen in the near future?

G. YAVLINSKY: I'm not counting anything, I'm telling you that this can easily happen. Just as you are now wondering why the election of the mayor of Moscow suddenly took place? In the same way, we may all be surprised by this. The collection of signatures for the dissolution of the Duma continues, and even the deputies of United Russia are participating in it. Yes. I wouldn't like to do... even though Medvedev told them to stop immediately! They all continue. Here. I don't want to draw very far-reaching conclusions from this, but I want to tell all Muscovites that elections, any elections, can happen very quickly. Because the system has a very low legitimacy. This is not a joke, the 2011 elections.

T. DZYADKO: If we evaluate these ... how much? Two months, yes, we have an election campaign going on? If you try to evaluate these two months from the point of view of their, on the one hand, the honesty of these two months, how the election campaign is going on, which, respectively, in case of victory, in case of victory of the incumbent mayor, gives him some legitimacy, you would like this appreciated?

G. YAVLINSKY: Well, what is there to evaluate? See how television works. Here is your answer. All. These are completely unequal conditions for anyone. One of the candidates, the acting mayor of Moscow, is present on all federal channels in an absolutely unlimited, I would say, number. All the other candidates, television for them - in my opinion, all the rest, or almost all the rest - for them, television is simply closed. They can get there through some grandiose scandals or something like that. That's all honesty for you. Well, there are some other things here: what is less removed from these elections, there, they don’t even take off for what needs to be removed ...

T. DZYADKO: For example, you were not registered in the elections of 12, but here the candidate from Yabloko is registered.

G. YAVLINSKY: That's what I'm saying, yes. Here I also speak, on these elections less remove. But we have filming all over the country. People are being filmed everywhere, absolute arbitrariness is taking place everywhere in terms of participation in elections. So, there is no need for any broad interpretations here, they just want to show victory in Moscow in a very triumphant way, because Moscow has the same political significance. That will be what will be done and will be ... But this does not negate anything in essence.

T. DZYADKO: Does it seem to you that this campaign is now completely under control? Or does the situation somehow develop on its own?

G. YAVLINSKY: Well, she has different episodes there...

T. DZYADKO: Now I’m talking about security, about political…

G. YAVLINSKY: She has different episodes there, there may be some surprises. Generally speaking, elections are such a thing that there can be even the most unexpected surprises. They can happen in general on the last day, a lot can change from one transmission. A lot can happen.

T. DZYADKO: What do you mean, for example?

G. YAVLINSKY: What do I mean? That people change their point of view. There are no particularly fixed views here. There is no such thing here that everything is somehow decided. In addition, secret voting is secret voting, in general, polls do not work very well there, which show us the result. I don't think there can be any revolutionary upheavals - I mean, actually in the voting, here. But this does not mean that they should be completely excluded. Here, everyone still needs to think carefully about who they will vote for, what they will do, what the principle of voting is. What will people vote for? What is the principle of voting?

T. DZYADKO: How would you answer this question?

G. YAVLINSKY: Well, here I am...

T. DZYADKO: What should be the principle of voting in Moscow in September 2013 during the mayoral elections?

G. YAVLINSKY: Yes. Here's what I would say, for example. I would say that let's think about what principle people will vote on. It seems to me that a very significant part of the people whom I would like to call for this in particular will vote on the basis of certain values, on the basis of certain ideas about what is good and what is bad. And in this sense, three completely different concepts are presented in the elections in Moscow today.

T. DZYADKO: Yes.

G. YAVLINSKY: Here. By the way, all three of them have such a serious fundamental rootedness. And they will accompany us, you, I assure you, until the presidential elections.

T. DZYADKO: And what are the concepts?

G. YAVLINSKY: Well, here's one concept - the concept of the interests of big capital. Right now, she still has some kind of ... nationalistic veil. And this is all that is connected with this direction. There, the end justifies the means. What big business did, or tried to do when it was created in the 90s.

T. DZYADKO: And which of the six candidates is the conductor of this concept?

G. YAVLINSKY: So I think that the representative of this direction, it is quite obvious, is Alexei Anatolyevich Navalny. There is another direction, there is another direction - this is Russia, a special path. This is a special way, so much so that even a person says that, in general, I am not a politician, not the mayor of Moscow, but just like that, here is the housekeeping ... I came here like that, to work out the housework, and that’s it. Here. This is a different direction. And there is a third way...

T. DZYADKO: You mean Sergei Semenovich.

G. YAVLINSKY: Yes, Sergei Semyonovich Sobyanin. And there is a third direction. The third direction in this sense, I would say, is human rights, the law is the same for everyone, property, the inviolability of property, freedom, democratic values ​​- this is Sergey Sergeevich Mitrokhin. Here are three directions. So I can tell you where each of these directions leads. Someday you will remember our program.

T. DZYADKO: Come on.

G. YAVLINSKY: Here is the first direction, it leads to collapse, just to collapse.

T. DZYADKO: The collapse of what?

G. YAVLINSKY: Countries. It's a serious thing, yes.

T. DZYADKO: Why?

G. YAVLINSKY: As a result... that's because nationalism in our country in any form, in any form, is its end, as in Yugoslavia. In any form. It is categorically contraindicated in our country. And the topic that you can be a little Russophobe or, there, a little bit of some other anti-Semite or something else is a very frivolous topic, because there are no such boundaries. These are the boundaries, there are none. And by the way, Mitrokhin's position on this issue commands great respect, because it is very consistent and persistent. Here. This is a very serious thing.

The second direction, which, as I said, is a special path, it leads to an irreversible lag. This is slow, but quite definite and without any options for any lag in the future. Moscow will, like the country as a whole, simply lag behind more and more, and then its gap with the most developed countries will be simply insurmountable. And the third way is the European way, with all its problems, shortcomings, complexities, contradictions, difficulties, of course.

T. DZYADKO: Look, this second concept, in fact, was supported less ... how much? Less...more, more a little a year ago, in March, 60 percent supported the second concept across the country as a whole.

G. YAVLINSKY: Right. Explain why?

T. DZYADKO: Yes.

G. YAVLINSKY: There is no alternative. The country had no alternative. What did she have to choose from?

T. DZYADKO: That is, if there was… well, there was, for example… there was an alternative in the person of, I don’t know, Mikhail Prokhorov…

G. YAVLINSKY: Well, don't.

T. DZYADKO: … who scored only 20% in Moscow.

G. YAVLINSKY: Well, don't, it's...

T. DZYADKO: “Total” in the sense that it is not 60.

G. YAVLINSKY: But only admiring ladies can consider that Mikhail Prokhorov is an alternative in this sense. Otherwise, no serious person can consider a billionaire, a Russian billionaire with all his roots, an alternative to Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin. Well, how is it? This is what it is. Everyone who was in those elections represented Putin. Well, let's say Prokhorov is Putin and business, right? Zyuganov is Putin and foreign policy. Mironov is Putin and pensioners. Well, and so on. There was no one else there. What were people to do? They don't want it all to fall apart. They also need to live somewhere.

T. DZYADKO: That is, it seems to you that now, suddenly, when they see new names on the ballots, when they come to the polling stations on the 8th, people will slap their foreheads and say: bah, so here it is, the alternative, appeared. And immediately everyone will vote not for the course they voted for in March 2012.

G. YAVLINSKY: I don't know, but we need to take the first steps. Well, don’t be like that… don’t think that there must be some kind of magic. We must take the first steps, we must start with something, we must fight for it. Sergei Mitrokhin is actively fighting for this. I really came to you today about this, as you know very well, to agitate for him. By the way, I've never done this in my life. Now I think this is very important.

T. DZYADKO: Why now?

G. YAVLINSKY: Because a very long cycle is beginning, in these elections. Now there will be elections of the mayor, in a year elections ...

T. DZYADKO: ... to the Moscow City Duma.

G. YAVLINSKY: ... to the Moscow City Duma. Then, you see, there will be elections to the State Duma, and then presidential elections. Only then it will be too late to cry that we have no one, there is no alternative, and Vladimir Vladimirovich will once again take 75%.

T. DZYADKO: And what do you think, in general, if we talk about the cycle, there is, again ... you can often see comments in some kind of analytical notes or on social networks that, they say, the election of the mayor of Moscow is the last chance, last chance for change, last chance for some shifts and so on.

G. YAVLINSKY: Listen, Russia has existed for many years...

T. DZYADKO: A lot.

G. YAVLINSKY: Guess how much, right? So many. She doesn't have a last chance. She has gone through such that she does not have any last chances. It's just that people need to behave smartly and understand that the last chance does not mean that you need to do whatever you want, but you need to do what is right. You need to vote for what corresponds to your views and not succumb to any hysterical generalizations. Well, for example, as we had. So, everyone now understands that the recommendation “vote for anyone except United Russia”, it led to that ...

T. DZYADKO: You mean the parliamentary elections of the 11th year.

G. YAVLINSKY: Yes, I mean the parliamentary elections on the 11th. It led to the fact that all people lost the State Duma, which would protect their interests for real. Well, those who voted for A Just Russia understand that they made a mistake. Well, that's understandable, obviously.

T. DZYADKO: Tell me, but do you think that if everyone voted for the Yabloko party, then the Yabloko party would have received the scale of falsifications that we observed, would it have received the result that it would have in real life?

G. YAVLINSKY: I... well, the way you put the question, she would not get the result she would get in real life, but she would get a great result. And this would provide a certain step forward, and a breakthrough, and representation. There would have been at least one faction that would have left the meeting room under such laws, as they have been adopted there lately, as we have already done. There would have been at least a faction that would have said: the falsifications were of such a scale that this State Duma should be dissolved. /To be continued/

Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars, People's Commissariat of Education, Ministry of Foreign Affairs!... This person is familiar to me! Interrogation sign instead of a body. Dot overcoat. Instead of a brain - a comma. Instead of a throat - a dark evening. Instead of burkal - a division sign. So a little man came out, a representative of the population. So a citizen came out, getting out of his trousers ... ... Hiding in their lair, the wolves howl "Yo-my".

I. Brodsky "Performance"

What does the composition of the "new" government say? That it won't get any better. Outwardly, everything will be as it was, but in fact - worse. The objective reason is the economy is in crisis. Subjective - neither Medvedev nor his deputies have any idea of ​​what should be done in the current conditions. And they don't want to have. Nothing to them.

THERE WILL BE NO "NEW" PUTIN

The essence of what is happening in connection with the formation of the government is the absence of changes for the better in the country. Refusal of any changes - emphasized, hypertrophied, squared. The minor shifts that have taken place only reinforce the impression of hateful hopelessness: Mutko at the construction site, Patrushev Jr. at the Ministry of Agriculture, Kudrin at the Accounts Chamber. Even writing about all this is boring.

But it cannot be otherwise. Because there is not and will not be any other, "new" Putin. Neither Putin 4.0 nor Putin 5.0. The re-approved president does not have any new ideas and proposals, there is no program for the modernization of the country, there is no image of the future, there is not even a program of action. Only a set of uncalculated declarations - "good wishes" - has been made public.

The essence of Putin's recent speeches - both before the presidential campaign and during the campaign, including the December "direct line" and the March message to the Federal Assembly - is a fundamental refusal to change the political course and carry out any reasonable and necessary reforms. Therefore, the seating order of the Krylovsky "quartet" does not matter.

The “breakthroughs” that the new-old president is talking about, while maintaining the current political course, are possible only in unwinding the repressive component of the regime. And Prime Minister Medvedev is quite suitable for this. He faithfully served the system in his place both before and after 2012. Covering Putin, he publicly voiced the key slogan of the current moment: "There is no money, but you hold on." Medvedev deserved it.

And the system by today has become such that there is no longer a “technical” government, or even a decorative parliament: both ministers and deputies (and absolutely everyone, including the so-called “parliamentary opposition”) are an organic part of a single authoritarian-bureaucratic system. This is called "nomenclature". Though in deputies, even in governors, even in ministers - they will fit everywhere. Universal soldiers of Putin. Personnel changes, of course, will happen. Dismissals are an effective resource: the hated "boyars" and "clerks" from the Kremlin porch will be thrown out when social tension rises.

What is the criterion for selecting personnel for the government and what is the logic behind such appointments? The only criterion for selecting personnel for the government is personal loyalty, and the logic of appointments is to ensure the indefinite retention of power.


CONTROL AND SAWING

As far as the Russian economy is concerned, economic policy (and this is exactly what the government should be doing) has narrowed to the limit. Now, economic policy in Russia means only oil prices, taxes and fees from the population, financing of the arms race and various military adventures (like Syria and Donbass), as well as crafty social handouts amid falling incomes. That is, modern economic policy is how to squeeze money from the population and how to distribute it for the goals of the regime. Well, and, if possible, how to “cut” what you can.

The staffing of this simple list of tasks is the meaning of the “replanting” of vice-premiers in the “new” government. The main function of the deputies is the distribution of budgetary funds in the conditions of economic stagnation and sanctions. Since the Russian government cannot influence oil prices or sanctions, the meaning of its work is to increase financial pressure on the population. The idea of ​​raising the income tax has already been thrown in and is being tested. The fall of the ruble, declining real incomes of people - all this is interpreted as a source of replenishment of the treasury. The decision to raise the retirement age has almost been made. Taxes on e-commerce, on tires, shoes, real estate, sheds, bathhouses, toilets, raising housing and communal services tariffs, and so on ad infinitum… There is still a redistribution ahead of us in the resource sector.

Government formation is a struggle for control over budgetary flows. An example of such undercover intrigue was the stuffing of information about the rest of the now former Deputy Prime Minister Prikhodko on Deripaska's yacht.


SIGNS AND MESSAGES

There are also significant ideological appointments in the 2018 government. The demonstrative retention of Medinsky as Minister of Culture is a message to the humanitarian community and the intelligentsia. And the appointment by the Minister of Science and Higher Education of the head of the Federal Agency for Scientific Organizations (a federal authority that most actively participated in the destruction of the Russian Academy of Sciences) is a personal message to all our scientists and every academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

The preservation of Lavrov and Shoigu in the cabinet of ministers, whose departments have become symbols of the isolationist aggressive foreign policy and the militarization of the country's life and public consciousness, is also significant. Lavrov, along with Medinsky, is one of the main propagandists in the country. The diplomat as a propagandist is an important element of the system. But if this is a return to the Soviet era, then not to Gromyko's "Mr. No", but rather to Molotov's "Stone Ass".

Shoigu also remained in place, despite all the obvious failures, such as the February incident near Deir ez-Zor in Syria, when Russian mercenaries died. A system that has relied on war becomes increasingly dependent on those who fight. And here we are talking not only about the Ministry of Defense, but also about those who actually lead those very mercenaries (see the article, February 2018). In the international arena, by the way, the story is the same with Assad and the Iranians: Russia turns out to be dependent on its Middle Eastern “allies”, and the prospects for the development of this dependence for our country are very unfavorable (see article, May 2018). Therefore, if the policy does not change, then there is no room for personnel maneuver either in the Ministry of Defense or in the government in general, and there is no chance of correcting the state of affairs in the country either.

It was necessary to resist this, fighting for the transformation of the plebiscite into elections, clinging to all the opportunities provided by the Constitution and the intention of the system to at least formally and partially observe it. Was there little chance? Maybe. But ignoring the elections and then discussing the possibility of change is absurd, fully in line with what Putin is imposing on society. The elections are over. Where is the hope for changes in polls of sociologists? Whom do 59% of the population expecting changes want to see at the head of the government? Sechin?

Talk about politics and the role of the party in the opposition space of the country Grigory YAVLINSKY started quite unexpectedly. Having informed that today (March 30. - "NG-politics") is the 43rd anniversary of his wedding with his wife Elena, he asked the editor-in-chief of "NG-politics" Roses FLOWER and browser "NG" Alexey GORBACHEV, who have already turned on the recorders, permission to call home a congratulatory call. So the journalists, willy-nilly, witnessed the exchange of tender words between the spouses and sincerely congratulated them on such a convincing date of living together. It is quite logical that the first questions concerned the family of Grigory Alekseevich.

- Does Elena Anatolyevna share your political views? Or he says in his hearts: “Grisha, why are you getting into all this ?!”

- Fundamentally, yes, he does, also because he treats me well. Why are you climbing - I never said that. On the contrary, she often emphasizes that the main role of Yabloko is to stop the decline of morals in the country. In general, we are often asked this question - well, what, they say, are you useful? And I answer: "Apple" - like air. As long as it's there, you don't notice it. And you try to live without us and see what happens.

- But there were moments when politics interfered rather rudely in your life. Recall at least that tragic story with the attack on the eldest son. At such moments, did your spouse also support you and did not say “step aside”?

– No, we thought together about how to protect children. And when I went to Dubrovka, to negotiate with the terrorists, she came straight to the theater to see me off. Or when I went to rescue prisoners in Chechnya, she gave me a sheepskin coat through the human rights activist Valery Borshchev. I remember very well, it was December, and it was terribly cold.

–Did you yourself have an inner fear at such moments as on Dubrovka?

- I didn't really think about it. There, in front of the theatre, under the floodlights, there was an area that was being shot at from all sides. And when you walk on it like a target, it is clear that at any moment they can shoot, and this can be in anyone's interests. But the choice has been made, and now the thought of what lies ahead.

– After the terrorist attack on Dubrovka, you had a rather long conversation with Putin. What were you talking about?

- Putin thanked. He emphasized that I did not advertise on this. But the conversation was very difficult, because a great tragedy happened, and our positions on the actions taken were different.

- At the recent federal council of the party, you said that Yabloko would have to expand its electoral base. How?

“We must learn to explain our program in such a way that the majority of the people understand us. And not just a narrow group of people who “understand everything” anyway. We are convinced that the goals we are striving for are close to literally everyone. Because, for example, absolutely everyone is in dire need of equality before the law and an independent judiciary. If we say that we are the party of the European way of development, then this is an appeal to a narrow group. And if you say that, having come to power, we will make sure that you will not be afraid of the police, education will become really free, you will not have to wait for the necessary research for months in the clinic, you can find justice in court, your property will be inviolable and no one at night will not demolish your stall and so on, then everyone needs it.

– It turns out that political slogans have become less interesting and close to citizens than social ones?

– Just such words as “democracy” and “European choice” should be explained to citizens more clearly. You can say: "Freedom to the media!" Or you can: “We will create a system in which journalists are not afraid, write the truth responsibly, and no one can forbid them to do this.” From democratic slogans that were never implemented, we need to move on to a calm and professional explanation to people of the meaning of what is happening and what needs to be done. We are now preparing special all-Russian political events in this context.

- One gets the impression that today all those to whom you want to turn with such explanations do not want to hear this. And more than 80% of the Russian electorate speak of support for Putin and his slogans. In what ways will you convince the Russians so that the explanations reach everyone?

Life will help. Truck drivers will be greatly assisted in clarifying these issues by the Platon toll system, against which protests have already begun. Residents of apartment buildings - problems of housing and communal services. Let's see how one and a half million people in Moscow will be relocated. Life teaches everyone. It's the same as talking to children, but they don't listen, and then they get burned and gradually begin to listen. So we will tell citizens that we understand their problems and know how to solve them.

We are fighting for people to be respected. However, they are not always ready to stand up for themselves. And why? Because they lack self-respect. This is a consequence of the fact that for centuries a Russian has been kept in a completely powerless position and he is like “dust in the wind” - most of the property has only a room in a communal apartment, and at best a small apartment somewhere in the settlements. It is clear that such a person is completely dependent on the authorities. What need to do? Give the tools so that a person begins to respect himself. First of all, private property - a house, land.

- And if you give him this house and land, and not a person who buys and builds all this himself, will this contribute to the growth of self-esteem?

- Yes. Because I want to offer not a fish, but a fishing rod. We give land for free, build a road and bring communications. And then - to build a house, to make the site comfortable for the family - this is already on its own. But you have to untie your hands first. An opportunity must be given. This has been promised since the abolition of serfdom, but it should have been done long ago.

- Your theses are still designed for the thinking part of the population. And young people, it seems, are not very interested in them. What are your threads of attraction to the young?

- In vain you believe that young people are not a thinking part of society. More like a thinker! Young people, if they don’t know something, feel a lot. But we also have threads to them. We consider it fundamentally necessary to provide social housing for young people. I believe that when students get married, they should immediately provide an apartment. This will raise the birth rate.

– Isn't that populism? Do we have money and opportunities for this today?

– Well, yes, we consider populism everything that is aimed at giving people something, getting something back from their own, not at all small taxes. But when to take away, such as, for example, pension savings, or even increase taxes - this is called "economic policy".

And, of course, there is money. And everyone knows it. The government is waging two wars, fully supporting the Donbass, not to mention the Crimea, increasing the army, building up weapons. So after all, all this needs money. Where are they from? After all, they are being squeezed from the population! And when it comes to Putin's entourage - "the best people" - laws are passed for them so that they do not even pay taxes. And you say - populism, no money. And if they spend it like that, then there will never be. If there is such corruption in the country, when our top officials pay 39 rubles and kopecks for renting thousands of hectares of land. I'm not talking about the extremely low efficiency of the huge state economy, mega-projects such as the Olympics, the World Cup, etc.

- If you go back to the Federal Council, where Yabloko announced the changes, you said that you would no longer focus only on the intelligentsia. And what electorate can attract Yabloko now?

We are starting to change Yabloko. We draw lessons from what is happening. The era of post-Soviet modernization ended in failure, and no one else sets the goals and objectives with which we entered this era. We need a new language, new formulations of tasks, although the meaning is the same - Russia must become a free, strong, competitive country. And domestic political differences should be how best to achieve this. However, there is nothing of the kind: half believe that we are going to Europe, half - that to Eurasia, many are not interested in the future at all - they are going to leave.

–Do you think that now the top of the country does not aim at the well-being of Russia?

- The leadership of the country has political color blindness. They are guided by a mixture of pragmatism and cynicism, according to the principle "after us, even a deluge." What will happen in the country in 50 years, they do not care. Well, what to do - temporary workers, they have such political qualifications. I have a personal example: when I headed a faction in the Legislative Assembly of St. Petersburg, we developed a conceptual strategy for the development of the city for 50 years ahead. At 50! This strategy is the only one in Russia. No more yet. It shows in detail what needs to be done to make St. Petersburg one of the most modern cities in the world. All steps are spelled out: how to solve the most serious urban problems, such as migration, transport, heat supply, preservation of the historical center, city management ...

And now, instead of all this, the governor there decides the question of whose accounting statements St. Isaac's Cathedral should go through, and because of this, the whole city was put on its hind legs. Here are two different approaches.

– What will be the key to the new Yabloko program?

– It can be described as “reforms for the majority”. We are a party that wants to serve the majority. Those principles for which we are fighting, they are addressed to everyone. Therefore, we set the task to have a dialogue with the whole country.

– Over the past 25 years, have you failed to do this?

“The power group did everything to make it impossible. We have been deprived of television for 15 years.

- Navalny was also not allowed on TV. But, look what we have after just a few months of his kind of election campaign?

- In Moscow and other Russian cities, an unprecedented number of young people of the “Putin generation” have taken to the streets, and now it is he, Navalny, who is called the leader of the Russian opposition. It turns out that in a short time he managed to accomplish what Yabloko could not do in 25 years?

– I think that in the end everything will develop according to the Bolotnaya scenario of 2011-2012. By the way, now we need to think not about who and how they are called, but to do everything in order to prevent the events of March 26 from being used for further persecution of the opposition! Signals about this are coming from all sides. The organization of the second, now all-Russian, “bolotnaya case” will be criminal with far-reaching consequences.

And returning to your question, I want to ask: what has changed in the country during this time, what has Bolotnaya achieved? Did it get better? Taking to the streets, people are certainly right - then they are for fair elections, now they are against corruption. But the politicians who initiate and call for this are responsible for the result. After Bolotnaya, things got worse. Why? Because most of those who then claimed leadership did not understand anything about politics and had neither a political strategy nor clear political goals. There was a lot of glamor and delight, but little meaning.

– What do you propose? Why did Navalny manage to ignite the hearts of people, but Yabloko did not? Even many party supporters are getting frustrated...

- As for "ignite the hearts" - so Medvedev, together with Putin, succeeded: with such corruption and theft for so many years, it's not surprising ... People's indignation is well understandable - this is a riot. But what next? And for us, the answer to the question "what do you offer" is clear. We offer the only thing that can work so far - elections. Whatever it is. Everyone needs to try to figure out what is happening, to decide now on their possible candidate, to go and vote. Other tools don't work. But due to the fact that people do not go to vote, we had a real turnout last year in the federal elections of about 30%, and we are where we are.

- How can you be sure that if everyone comes to the presidential elections, you will win them? You even confidently promised this in one of your recent interviews: I will win the election against Putin.

- I guarantee that even under the current conditions, 70% of the voters will come to the elections and more than 20% will vote for me, then a significant part of our requirements will be fulfilled. The democratic opposition will be listened to, just as Putin is now listening to the mood of Zyuganov's electorate.

And if the elections are at least minimally fair - for example, there will be independent election commissions, normal television and debates with all candidates, including Putin, if all applicants have at least approximately comparable conditions, including financial ones, then you can win the elections. In legitimate elections, Putin can be confidently defeated. There are more than enough reasons for this.

– So all these “ifs” are unrealistic today?

– We live in a rigid authoritarian corporate semi-criminal system of the feudal type. And they are required to demand its change. And for this, it is necessary, first of all, to use legal tools - to start with the fact that to come to the polls. However, people are persuaded not to do this. At the same time, they passionately want everything to be fine tomorrow. And how to do it tomorrow? There are rules of life: a child can be born only after nine months. For change to come, you must first come to the polls and vote wisely. Just not "for anyone but ..." - this is stupidity. And for whom it is necessary. And the protest, even according to the type it is developing now, repeats the scenario of Bolotnaya, who declared: “We don’t need politicians!”

And it was necessary to consolidate the potential of protest that had accumulated at that time in order to vote for a democratic candidate in the presidential elections. But people on Bolotnaya were convinced that it was enough to walk with white balloons. And at the same time, I was removed from the presidential elections for a week, because they were checking how Bolotnaya would react. And to the cries of “we don’t need politicians,” they removed him and replaced him with the meaningless candidate Prokhorov, who, by the way, received registration documents when the deadline was up. It happens that people pay with their lives in order to schedule presidential elections in the country. And in our country they were appointed then and were supposed to take place in a month and a half, but the "rulers of the minds" did not understand that their own candidate and participation were needed. What only did not cause ladies' delight: there was a coordinating council of the opposition. And where is he now?! What they voted for - for "any party, except for United Russia." What, "Fair Russia" turned out to be better?!

– Do you think that the authorities were not afraid of Bolotnaya and did not draw any conclusions for themselves?

- Frightened. And she drew conclusions. But these conclusions ended in disaster for the protest movement.

– And what conclusions did Yabloko draw from the results of the events of recent years?

- Exactly the ones we talked about at the last political council. We will change tactics and bring our ideas to the majority of the population.

– And yet how to achieve that the ideas of the "Yabloko" come true?

–There seems to be almost 100% turnout in the North Caucasus, and what difference does that make?

- The Caucasus is a different story. The fate of the Russian presidential elections is not yet being decided there. Do you want change? Then you personally, everyone who wants changes, must convince that you need to vote for a normal, proven democratic candidate, all your relatives, acquaintances, friends, interlocutors ... For example, you need to agitate your daughter, her young man, your neighbors, classmates, etc. Here is your task for the next 11 months - let everyone who wants a different life, freedom, respect, prosperity, agitate and bring 100 people to the polling station. No party can do this, only the people themselves can do it. Remember how you voted for Yeltsin in 1990-1991. What were the obstacles, and people convinced each other, voted, and nothing could be done about it. People got tired of everything, and they went and chose him. Neither I nor anyone can change anything if the citizens do not go to vote.

– We would like to remind you that it is precisely the problem of turnout that the presidential administration is now concerned about ...

- Maybe. And what?

– It turns out that they are sure of victory, but you are playing in the wrong direction?

- We would be sure that we would not reduce the turnout with all our might last year. They both want and prick. They are very afraid of voting with a real, not falsified high turnout. And we need to have a turnout, but they did not vote for Putin.

– Then this is again a question for you, so that you are such an alternative that people would vote for ...

- That's right, so I'm telling you - please, everyone who wants change, agitate and bring 100 people to the polls, convince them to vote for a democratic candidate. It is naive to sit at home or walk on the street and hope that there is a politician who will do everything for you. That doesn't happen.

– The question is how to bring it to everyone?

– The principle of 100 people. Go to the next apartment. From tomorrow. You have known me for 25 years. Know me in all situations.

– To be honest? We would like more decisive and convincing action from you.

- Wonderful! I will work better. Offers are accepted. But even more decisive actions do not change the essence of the matter - you need to vote for someone you know well and from whom you know what to expect. Mikhail Gefter was asked in 1996: who will you vote for? He answered: for Yavlinsky. Journalists were very surprised, then Yeltsin and Zyuganov were in favor. And he explained his position simply: you need to vote for someone with whom you are not afraid to leave your child for five years. Imagine that you have to go on a business trip for several years: with which of the presidential candidates will you not be afraid to leave the baby, so that when you return, you will find him a normal person? Also with the country. It must be entrusted to someone in whom he is sure that he will not start an unnecessary war, will not set one part of the population against another, will not shut his mouth, crush and steal everything for himself and his friends. According to these criteria, you must choose.

- Nevertheless, in all the years that you participated in the presidential elections, you never reached the very top lines ...

- This is wrong. I came in third in the 2000 presidential election, and in Moscow I got over 20% on a nearly 70% turnout, and no Democrat has ever made that much with a turnout like that. This despite the fact that even then, as you know, there were considerable falsifications. But now the situation is different. Now it’s not up to taste: like it - don’t like it. The fate of the country is being decided in the literal sense. The main thing now is that, on the whole, the country is following a path that does not exist, going into a blind alley, and possibly into a cliff. My opposition to the authorities goes along the line “I say - the country is going nowhere, to the third world, Russia is losing chances for a successful future every year; Putin says everything is fine, we continue.” That's actually what a fork and what a choice. This is not an ordinary presidential election. Fate is decided.

– And yet, why don't the majority hear your perfectly reasonable ideas?

– Because the people who have usurped power in Russia are doing everything for self-preservation. To do this, they have monopolized, subjugated and control to the smallest detail all, without exception, politically significant media.

- They play an important role, but not enough to do something real political. With their help, you can organize a protest, a riot, but they are deprived of the opportunity to bring meaning. You can collect on Pushkinskaya or Manezhnaya Square through social networks. But through them it is impossible to fill these meetings with meaning.

- It came out. We had a simple solution: as an individual, anyone can participate. As for the participation of Yabloko as a party, we have a limitation. We do not consider it possible to risk the freedom, health and lives of our supporters, other people for the sake of political goals, especially very ephemeral ones. I can only risk my head, so I went to Dubrovka, flew to Chechnya, freed our military. I believe that a politician bears unconditional responsibility for the life and health of peaceful unarmed citizens, whom he calls to follow him. They believe him, and he is responsible for them. As they say, we do not need such PR. Moreover, sincere, innocent deceived people pay for it.

– Young people want drive, they like it...

- So, we need to find the safest, but at the same time effective, effective ways of political action for them - to look for a common language, to be able to listen to them and convince them. Young people are able to understand meanings, and we have a lot of young people in our party.

- If we assume that these current protests still end with the resignation of Medvedev, will this contribute to the democratization of the country, or will it be about strengthening the group of security forces in power?

- And what? Instead, there will be, for example, Sechin. Will it be a success of the protest? Medvedev will be whatever Putin decides. And he has his own plan. And Medvedev's revelations most likely fit into this plan. For some reason, this suits Putin. Perhaps he will get rid of the unpopular prime minister with the help of this compromising evidence. Then he will say: you asked.

- Can you explain why our richest country in terms of resources struggles year after year, stepping on the same rake?

“Because never in the history of our country has a people been able to create their own state that serves them and not themselves. The only time there was an attempt to do this was in 1991-1992, when the people elected their own deputies and Yeltsin. But then tragedy struck. The reforms began to be carried out in such a way that the people lost all confidence in the government and again began to hate it. Instead of a vital dialogue, the people were told: if you are dissatisfied with something, for example, hyperinflation of 2600% per year, which has become, in essence, a total confiscation of all people's savings for 70 years, then you are anti-reform forces and there is nothing to talk about with you . And 1993 began with shooting at the White House, then the war in the Caucasus. In 1995, fraudulent privatization, which laid the foundation for all current corruption, tightly connecting property and power, and then default and devaluation, explosions of houses and the appointment of Putin ... That's all we have. And in the 2000s, the country suddenly had huge money from oil and gas, and they cemented a vicious extra-legal system of merging power and property. As a result, the Russian economic system has become such that it is even impossible to reform it; political conditions must be changed. To do this, elect a new president. Or at least put a lot of pressure on him. First of all, elections, if everyone comes and votes in good conscience.

– And what will you say later when, with a high turnout, Putin is elected, not you?

- The most important thing in this case is how many votes the opposition will get, that's what you need to think about. And what kind of opposition will it be? If Zhirinovsky and the Communists, then this is one thing. And if the real civil democratic opposition receives a large percentage, then the elected president will fulfill a significant part of our demands. As now, Putin reckons with the communists in almost everything and in many respects pursues their policy.

– Will Yabloko survive as a party after Yavlinsky?

- Everything that is happening now in the party is being done so that Yabloko can successfully exist as a self-governing civil organization. We set the goal that in a few years we should have 40-50 effective modern young politicians in our party core. We will definitely do it.

– How many democratic parties does Russia need? Maybe one was enough?

“The ban on electoral blocs must be lifted so that compromises can be sought and political alliances can be created. Then the number of democratic parties will be such as corresponds to the state of society.

– What can Yabloko give the youth now? What growth is possible for them in the party?

- Growth in the party up to the chairman and, of course, the opportunity to participate in all municipal, regional and federal elections. We invite the youth to join the party to engage in real big politics. We share our experience of victories and defeats, political work in real Russian conditions. We want to raise young people into serious, responsible, real Russian politicians. This is also our role.

Grigory Yavlinsky spoke about the FBK investigation on Facebook. He wrote that if all this is true, President Putin should resign, and not just Prime Minister Medvedev. He also added that it is possible, if there is no resignation, then Putin will use this story in his election campaign and probe the possibility of changing the prime minister and the reaction of society to this.

On our flank, unfortunately, it is customary to suspect each other of venality, behind-the-scenes management from the Presidential Administration and other bad things. The second paragraph of the statement can be read ambiguously, I would not write like that. This, in my opinion, is an unfortunate statement.
However, the first part is more important here. Yes, and there is no reason to believe the information is untrue.

Update: Apparently, it is necessary to write more detailed. Yes, many people believe that the authorities are using Navalny and the FBK for their own purposes, promoting him in the process. Lebedev recently wrote about this, for example.
People have the right to such a position, they don’t write that Navalny goes to the Presidential Administration for envelopes and receives instructions there, they develop the version that the authorities are playing their games there through the FBK and leaking materials to them.
Such a position is not a reason for harassment, and certainly not a reason for twitching like “look, he said that we work for the Kremlin!”

Unfortunately, Navalny's supporters and FBK employees decided to twitch this case and are now spreading the following:

Fighting an internal enemy is often just as important to them as fighting government crooks, so the attention of their tweeters quickly shifted from Medvedev to Yavlinsky.

As usual, not directly, but through Volkov, Navalny himself joined the case, without failing to convict Yavlinsky himself of working for Putin

Of course, such actions of the Navalny team are a failure and a disgrace. After a brilliant investigation about the prime minister, instead of talking about him, they turn their attention to the statement of Grigory Yavlinsky, and obviously distorting its content, without mentioning its main meaning.
It is precisely such actions that show that the anti-corruption fighter from Navalny is excellent, but the politician is not. As a politician, he quarrels people who have no reason to quarrel. Throwing accusations that have no reason to be voiced. It does not unite, but divides adequate people, calls them to persecution and ridicule of politicians who adhere, in general, to the same positions.

Failure and disgrace, friends. You need to grow up, it's impossible to win if you reduce such important stories to such a kindergarten

Saved

Grigory Yavlinsky spoke about the FBK investigation on Facebook. He wrote that if all this is true, President Putin should resign, and not just Prime Minister Medvedev. He also added that it is possible that if there is no resignation, then Putin will use this story in his election campaign and ...

Verification of signatures of voters in support of Grigory Yavlinsky as a presidential candidate, which showed only 1.07% of defects (after which the CEC is obliged to register him), immediately caused several skeptical comments (the forward of which was Alexei Navalny) - from “their signatures were not actually checked ", and to "they could not honestly collect so many signatures."

Perhaps the skepticism is explained simply: none of the skeptics has (or almost no) experience in collecting signatures in support of his nomination. And, of course, he simply does not understand how this process is organized.

I do not undertake to answer for other parties and other candidates, but Yabloko collected signatures in elections at various levels for 25 years (starting with the elections to the State Duma in 1993). Collected and more than 100 thousand - "experience, the son of difficult mistakes", we have.

In 2018, to support the nomination of Grigory Yavlinsky as a candidate for the Russian presidency, Yabloko collected signatures in 81 regions of the Russian Federation. Signatures were collected by more than 3 thousand collectors, whose personal data was certified by a notary. In total, more than 300 thousand signatures were collected. After a thorough check at the regional headquarters, 160,000 were sent to the central headquarters (in Moscow, on Pyatnitskaya Street).

The second and very tough stage of verification took place already at the Yabloko headquarters. At the same time, such "external auditors" as Dmitry Muratov, Andrei Zayakin and Elena Dubrovina (formerly a long-term member of the Central Election Commission) took part in the verification of signatures. Journalists and public activists (for example, from Golos) could observe the receipt of signatures from the regions and their verification non-stop - everything was extremely open. We understood that signatures for Yavlinsky - unlike signatures for Putin - would be checked at the CEC literally under a magnifying glass. And any doubt that arose among the specialists who checked the signatures (including the involved handwriting experts) became the basis for culling the signatures.

As a result, 107,000 signatures were submitted to the CEC, of ​​which 60,000 (from 74 regions) were selected by the commission for verification. As a result of the check, the indicated 1.07% of marriages, and Grigory Yavlinsky should receive the status of a registered candidate for the post of President of Russia.

And then - on the eve of the announcement of the official results of the verification of signatures, we were surprised to learn from Alexei Navalny a "terrible secret": it turns out that we "did not collect signatures at all," and he "thinks that Yavlinsky's headquarters forged 60 percent of the signatures." Dot. End quote from politician's twitter. And, besides, "there are no thousands of assemblers."

Does this mean that the mentioned three thousand collectors do not exist? That there were no people who in Moscow, St. Petersburg, Petrozavodsk, Pskov, and other cities came to the regional branches of Yabloko and put their signature? That the process of collecting signatures, which was “posted” daily by our headquarters on social networks, was a fiction? That there were neither "apple" activists who collected signatures, nor staff members who checked them?

Meanwhile, I saw with my own eyes how Yabloko collected signatures in St. Petersburg. I saw how people came to the office of the party on Shpalernaya Street to put their signatures. I saw how such famous Petersburgers as Alexander Sokurov and Oleg Basilashvili, Olga Starovoitova and Lev Kaplan put their signatures in support of the nomination of Grigory Yavlinsky. I saw how even those who, to put it mildly, are skeptical of Yavlinsky, but believe that he has the right to participate in elections, entered their personal data into the signature sheets and signed. I saw how these signatures were checked in St. Petersburg and in Moscow. I saw how spared no effort and time those who work in the election campaign. Did I get all this?

A politician who cares about his reputation has no right to unsubstantiated accusations against his opponents. And Navalny, who claimed 60% of allegedly forged signatures for Yavlinsky, is obliged to explain what exactly led him to this conclusion.

What information does he have and what is the source of this information? Where does this figure come from - 60% of signatures are forged? Not 30%, not 50%, not 70%, not 58%, but exactly 60%? Was he anonymously informed about this from the CEC? He was approached by people who said that their signatures for Yavlinsky were forged? His people were sent into the ranks of the collectors and deliberately forged signatures in order to now admit it? But the forgery of voters' signatures is a criminal offense: does this mean they turn themselves in confession?

However, Navalny is silent, like a schoolboy caught in a lie - and I understand why: he does not have any "sources" of his "information".

I agree with Lev Shlosberg: the prefix “I think” before the statement about the forgery of 60% of “apple” signatures saves Navalny from prosecution. But it does not eliminate the assessment of his words as false and offensive. Offensive for those who collected signatures for Yavlinsky, who checked them at our headquarters, and for tens of thousands of citizens who put these signatures. And I understand well those who now address Alexei Anatolyevich on the Internet with very harsh expressions or write about serious disappointment in him.

Alas: it is becoming more and more clear that (once again I agree with Schlosberg): the organizers of the “voters' strike” are not fighting Putin: they are fighting mainly Yavlinsky and Yabloko. What they need is not the defeat of Putin, but the most severe defeat of the Democrats - in order to keep this field for themselves. I hope that after Navalny's shameful "tweet" this will become clear even to some of his supporters...

Taking this opportunity, I want to clarify: of course, the institution of collecting signatures in the form in which it is used in Russia is repressive and serves, for the most part, the goal of removing the opposition from the elections.

Yabloko has repeatedly stated the need to reform it - completely abolishing it or, at the request of candidates, replacing it with an electoral deposit, and has repeatedly introduced relevant legislative initiatives.

Nevertheless, as long as this institution exists in its present form, everyone who takes part in elections has to reckon with it.

We have to learn how to collect signatures, and do it very carefully - in order to make it as difficult as possible for the authorities to remove them from the elections.

And one should not think that registration by signature is impossible: both Yabloko and other opposition parties and candidates have solved this problem many times, proving the authenticity of their signatures.

And if we assume in advance that the "signature" barrier is insurmountable, we must give up and give up the fight altogether. Give up the opportunity to appoint your deputies at different levels (who will later become an important and effective "tool" for solving citizens' problems). To give up the opportunity, if not to radically change the policy of the authorities, then at least to seriously influence it.

We are sure that it is necessary to fight. And in this struggle - as the experience of the same Shlosberg and his comrades in Pskov, the experience of our comrades in Karelia and St. Petersburg, Moscow and Kaluga, Kostroma and Vladimir, and other regions - shows, one can win.