‘Where is its heart?’

Russian businessman and former donor Boris Zimin on his disillusionment with Navalny’s Anti-Corruption Foundation

In early May, Russian businessman and philanthropist Boris Zimin granted an interview to Deutsche Welle, where he discussed his decision to withdraw funding from Alexey Navalny’s Anti-Corruption Foundation (FBK). Since the FBK’s inception, Zimin has been one of the few major donors to openly reveal his identity. Zimin’s remarks in the interview, which DW released in full just three days ago, reveal a strikingly critical perspective on the FBK’s actions following Navalny’s passing. Meduza shares some of his comments.

These statements have been lightly abridged and edited for clarity.

On the Anti-Corruption Foundation (FBK)

After Alexey [Navalny] was imprisoned, I found myself increasingly at odds with what the FBK was doing. Firstly, the entire FBK was in a very complicated, difficult, and highly contradictory situation. There was a contradiction between being a political organization and being the team of a person in prison. A political organization is a place for discussion — there should be internal debates and a battle of ideas. On the other hand, the team of a person in prison, in the best sense, is like a cult. There should be no discussions; you have to get things done and save your leader.

Even though we’re outlawed in Russia, we continue to deliver exclusive reporting and analysis from inside the country.

Our journalists on the ground take risks to keep you informed about changes in Russia during its full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Support Meduza’s work today.

On Yulia Navalnaya, Alexey’s widow

I don’t really remember her being actively involved in the FBK’s activities while Alexey was alive. I think she used to say, “Guys, leave me alone, I’m a politician’s wife, and I have my own role.” Understandably, this changed after Alexey’s death. And overall, Yulia has done an amazing job; usually, these kinds of situations break people, but Yulia is a very strong person, and she has my full support and respect. However, I believe that the FBK and Yulia Navalnaya aren’t the same thing.

On a crisis of ideas

The FBK is a team left without its main figure, without its heart, without its leader. Tell me, who’s the leader now? Where’s its heart, what’s the idea? Alexey was a politician; he could make tough decisions and likely understood that you often have to choose between a bad option and a worse one. After the film Traitors, I can see that the FBK has a function that’s somewhat clear, but it has no overarching idea. What’s the idea now? That corruption is bad? Yes, but that’s somewhat banal; everyone knows that. Even Putin repeats it; anyone would say that. But then what?

On stirring up hatred

All I see coming from the film Traitors and much of the team’s political activities is hatred. What’s wrong with the film? Well, everything, except for the truth. What’s wrong with the phrase “the Jews crucified our God?” It’s all technically true. On the surface, they’re facts, but in essence, it’s filth. It’s hatred, a statement aimed at something other than the truth.

Hatred is a very dangerous thing. Hatred begets more hatred. A political organization should be focused on finding common ground and uniting ideas, on seeking allies — not on spreading hate. When Alexey was at the heart of it all, the entire team, including him, knew how to find common ground, set the agenda, and effect change. Fighting corruption is an eternal theme because corruption has always existed and always will. It’s the easiest field for a populist. But what comes next? What’s the point of hating liberals, [Anatoly] Chubais, and everyone else?

Just imagine the war ends tomorrow. What will the FBK propose — hating liberals? Well, that’s a hatred that even Putin’s supporters share. Let’s say the war ended, for some reason or other. A million people who fought, along with several million more connected to them, will think: “We were deceived, we were betrayed. Who’s the traitor? Look, there they are, the people who stole everything and left us without the funds to defeat the Ukrainians.” And where will they all go with the FBK? Back to fight in Ukraine again?

So far, we see that the FBK is fighting for electoral success, not for an idea. Right now, they’re fighting against competitors who may not even exist. The main goal is to make sure that there’s an empty field around the FBK and that the FBK is the main and most influential opposition force, without any alliances or sympathizers: “Everyone else is bad; we’re the best because we fight corruption.” I think the FBK is squandering its potential and the trust it has, whether inherited or rightfully earned. But now, unfortunately, the FBK is stirring up hatred, regardless of whom it’s toward, to the detriment of coming together for the sake of the beautiful Russia of the future.

On cutting off funding for the FBK

I’m no longer funding the FBK. We had already planned to reduce contributions, so there wasn’t any sudden change. We gradually and systematically decreased the funding. I believe it’s not good for an organization to depend on a major sponsor. If it’s a political organization, it should receive money from a wide range of supporters, and relying on a major sponsor is a risk. It’s in the political organization’s best interest to have more sponsors with smaller individual contributions.

On Leonid Volkov’s signature supporting Mikhail Fridman

I still think this issue is unresolved. When there's a major screw-up, there’s usually an investigation and sometimes a change in leadership. That didn’t happen with the FBK. […] Yes, they admitted that it was a mistake, that it was wrong to sign, but no lessons were learned. There was no investigation to ensure that something like this couldn’t happen again in the future.