"Itogi" /

September 19, 2000
Press conference at the Interfax agency
Taking part in the press conference are: Alexey Venediktov, editor-in-chief of Ekho Moskvy, Evgeny Kiselev, general director of NTV, Sergey Parkhomenko, editor-in-chief of the Itogi magazine, Mikhail Berger, editor-in-chief of the Segodnya newspaper, Andrey Tsimailo, first deputy. Chairman of the Board of Directors of Media-Most. ( published with abbreviations )

E. KISELEV: We have gathered you to tell you some very unpleasant news. The chaos in relation to the media, which the media executives present here, as well as their colleagues, have been warning about for so long, seems to have received documentary confirmation. You have seen everything in newspapers, on various Internet sites, on news agency feeds, and heard on the radio details about the so-called agreement that was imposed on Vladimir Gusinsky on July 20. In particular, you all probably already know about the unprecedented document, probably in Russian history, appendix number 6 to this agreement, which actually contains a political link between the conclusion of the deal and the provision of Media-Most to Gusinsky, as well as his partners, media executives ", including those present here, guarantees of freedom, security, down to such nuances as freedom of entry and exit from our country. We are ready today to answer all the questions that you probably have. To preface some of this, I would like to say just two things. Firstly, we are convinced that all the disagreements that exist between Media-Most and Gazprom have nothing to do with the economy or finances. This was confirmed during the latest negotiations that took place in London on September 13 between Igor Malashenko and Alfred Koch. Mr. Sobolev, who, mind you, is one of the leaders of the well-known advertising company Video International, also took part in the negotiations. He participated in the negotiations as a confidant of Press Minister Mikhail Lesin. At these negotiations, in fact, government representatives admitted that there were no economic obstacles to settling Media-Most’s debt to Gazprom, but that it was necessary to formalize the political consequences of such a deal, that is, to agree on a mechanism for establishing political control over the media, primarily over the NTV television company . Conditions that, of course, are absolutely unacceptable to us. And second. By the way, today my friend and colleague Andrei Tsimailo, who was the main negotiator along with Malashenko on our side, can tell a lot about these negotiations, as well as about other negotiations. He conducted these negotiations with Alfred Koch more than once or twice, both during personal meetings and by telephone. A question that probably everyone has, and maybe has even already been heard in the newspapers. Sorry, I didn't have much time to read all these newspapers today. Why have we been silent for so long, have we not published this sixth appendix, the scandalous appendix, which today Mikhail Sergeevich Gorbachev, the chairman of our public council, described as blatant evidence of gross state blackmail. Why did we wait and remain silent? The answer is simple. Firstly, we still wanted to achieve a real economic and financial compromise. The main thing for us is not to stir up another political scandal; we are not a political party, not the opposition. We are the media, the most important thing for us was to preserve the opportunity for the independent media that are part of Media-Most to continue to work normally, so that those journalists who work on our television company, on the Ekho Moskvy radio station, in the newspaper, in magazines, continued to perform their duty normally. To achieve this, we still tried and continue to insist that we want to regulate our financial relations with Gazprom on economic terms, but without political pressure and without political and forceful interference in these negotiations. Andrey Tsimailo can talk about this in more detail. In addition, there is a detailed letter with our proposals, which were formulated immediately after these last negotiations, a letter signed by Gusinsky. The fact that this proposal has been received seems to have been confirmed by Koch today. And the second circumstance I would like to mention. We still wanted to understand what the role of the highest authority is in this whole story. It was not entirely clear to us, and the question still remains open to us, to what extent the president was informed about what was happening. We hoped that perhaps a personal meeting between Vladimir Gusinsky and the president could contribute to a normal, civilized resolution of the situation. In particular, we made some efforts for this and organized a telephone conversation through one of our journalists, who had the opportunity to meet with Putin. It was August 15, when Putin was in Sochi. A short telephone conversation took place between Vladimir Gusinsky and Vladimir Putin, in which they agreed on a meeting that was to take place after the president returned from vacation. Then there was Kursk, and then the events developed, and Alexey Venediktov, who took a direct part in them, can best tell about them.

A. VENEDIKTOV: I want to say right away that the chief editors of the media knew about the presence of these documents, including the sixth protocol, even when the protocol was not signed. To be clear: we were aware from the very beginning, all four editors-in-chief were aware of the negotiations. That is exactly why there was also a question for us, since we work in the field of public policy, as editors-in-chief of the media, what role and how much information President Putin receives, and at what level he made these decisions. Naturally, this could only be found out from the president himself, so when, in my opinion, on August 23, I managed to meet, first in a team of journalists, and then one on one, I asked him a few questions. We talked about the role of the press. The President repeated his well-known tough position on television coverage of the events at Kursk, in particular, and so on. But I asked him about these documents, without specifically reading the protocol to him. From which I derived my absolute personal conviction that the president did not know about the form. That is, he didn’t know these details when I threw them at him in conversation. Although he knew that something was going on. The President clearly shared his political displeasure, and this is understandable, with the position of the media holding on certain issues. However, he does not hide it publicly. And he repeated to me several times that it was necessary to resolve commercial differences with Gazprom. Commercial disagreements are commercial, and political disagreements are political. At the same time, he emphasized that he would not meet with Gusinsky. In other words, this meeting was canceled because it seemed to him that Gusinsky gave the command to cover the Kursk like this. Despite all my words that this was impossible and that journalists from all publications, regardless of the owner, covered Kursk equally, the president apparently remained with his point of view, and I with mine. I brought this to the attention of my partners and colleagues, and to Gusinsky. Nevertheless, convinced that we are now dealing not with an economic, but with a political problem, today I called the head of President Putin’s secretariat. We agreed with him that I could make a call if necessary. And I told him that a political problem had arisen - this protocol number six, where the criminal case against a businessman is linked to political freedoms and the transfer of property. Therefore, I ask Vladimir Vladimirovich to accept four editors-in-chief, because he always listens to one side, unfortunately. If he has complaints against us, complaints against the editors-in-chief who run the media, he can and is obliged to express them to us, I don’t see anything wrong with that. We must understand how truly opposed he is to such things that were signed by the Minister of Press and Information, his minister. I was told that the schedule is very difficult, but will be reported. We do not call on the president to intervene in the matter between Gazprom and Media-Most regarding debt settlement. We call on the president, as the guarantor of the Constitution, to listen to us about the political position that Lesin took. This is what the continuation was like. The conversation with the head of the Presidential Secretariat took place about 40 minutes ago. Promised to report.

- Let's move on to questions.

- Kommersant newspaper. Alexey, you said that you were aware of the negotiations from the very beginning. Were you aware of the link between political and economic components from the very beginning? Why then was it not more profitable for you, in order to prove the integrity of the same Vladimir Gusinsky, immediately, when he left the country and nothing threatened him in the physical sense, to declare what happened?

A. VENEDIKTOV: In my opinion, Evgeny answered this question. I will try to formulate it separately for the Kommersant newspaper. We discussed this issue. Yes, we knew from the very beginning. I would ask you to refer to three dates. June 16, morning - Gusinsky is in prison. Malashenko arrives. He should receive a call from Lesin with a proposal to begin negotiations. June 16, day - at a press conference we declare that while a person is being held hostage, we will not negotiate with bandits. June 16, evening - Gusinsky is released. Coincidence, you say? Great. Let's move on. A month later. July 18. Gusinsky, in the presence of two American lawyers, makes a statement under video and audio recording in which he says that everything that he will be forced to sign is legally null for him, because he will sign it under pressure and the threat of arrest, because on July 18 we received information that new arrests will begin. July 19 - the arrest of Gusinsky's property follows, a new squall begins. On July 20, Gusinsky signs these same papers. On July 26, he leaves, his preventive measure is changed and he is informed that the case is against Gusinsky, which was confirmed today by the deputy. Prosecutor General Kolmogorov, closed. Another coincidence? You be the judge. Now why weren’t these papers announced? There is a problem of unsettled debt. The negotiator for Gazprom is the officially appointed Alfred Koch. Our interest is to settle the debt. We are a commercial organization, by the way, with a very good reputation in the world market. If we publish this document, which we consider null (and they know this, by the way), then we publish the name Koch. And the opportunity to settle our debt is disrupted. Our task is to settle the debt and develop further as a commercial organization. If it had not been published, there would be no need for this document. This is an insurance document. If they again try to say that this is only about commerce, say: “No, guys, you yourself, Mr. Kokh and Mr. Lesin, think that this is not a business.” That's all.

S. PARKHOMENKO: I will add a few phrases. Still, a critical question, and perhaps a key one, is why we were not the initiators of this revelation. This is to some extent a question of what our task is. The Financial Times newspaper, for example, today wrote an article that was surprising in terms of misunderstanding, describing this whole story as “an epic confrontation between Gusinsky and Koch.” They quarreled in 1997 and have been tearing each other apart ever since - this is how the Financial Times sees it. Of course, if the task was to smash Mr. Koch into pieces and in half, then, probably, it would have been necessary, as soon as he put his signature on this document, to immediately jump out with this signature shouting: “Look what he did.” . But this is still not the task. The goal is for NTV to be published, Echo to broadcast, for the newspaper to be published every day, and the magazine to be published every week. Our task was, after all, to do our job, and not to expose Mr. Koch at any cost. For example, at the cost of stopping our publications as a fact of the information market of the Russian Federation. Much credit to Mr. Koch. We were well aware that a direct, open forceful confrontation with the state as a whole is, in fact, futile and cannot lead to anything other than mutual destruction of reputation and, ultimately, to the closure of these publications. The task was to continue these negotiations, having this legally insignificant document as some kind of moral proof, and try to get out of this conflict, to get out of it in a normal, natural way. Did not work out. The fact that this happened exactly yesterday, after Gusinsky made the statement that will be distributed today about the existence of an agreement on a new basis - the fact that this happened after this statement by Gusinsky proves that the financial settlement is, in fact, the opposite the side is not needed. This is a possibility that scares them much more than the lack of a financial agreement.

M. BERGER: The purely political nature of this situation is evidenced by what our colleagues have already formulated, and we agree with this: prosecutorial support for the negotiation process. Recently, such know-how has appeared, and it arises not only in the situation with Media-Most, when suddenly the prosecutor’s office assigns compensation, ransoms to a large property owner or a large company: how much do you need to pay in order to get rid of me? This prosecutorial support for negotiations on the debt and the transfer of shares speaks volumes about the 100% political basis of the conflict that arose between Media-Most and formally the creditor, but in reality the Kremlin administration. Today, another confirmation of the prosecutorial service (I can’t find another word) of the negotiations is the statement of the Deputy Prosecutor General, Mr. Kolmogorov, who voiced everything that Lesin promised two months ago: if you publish something, then we will involve Interpol, we will find out what you sold abroad and so on. Today Kolmogorov, as if from a note, reproduced all this. It’s good to do business when you have people on your side with machine guns, wearing masks, rattling the keys to Butyrka. Then you can agree on anything.

E. KISELEV: I would add to this that today INTERFAX disseminated a statement from the Center for Information and Public Relations of the Prosecutor General's Office that it has nothing to do with the agreement between Gusinsky and Gazprom and is in no way connected with it by its actions. I responsibly declare to you: this is not true. If only because in the process of all these negotiations related to the signing of the so-called agreement, Gusinsky more than once met, for example, with Mr. Lyseiko, the head of the investigative department of the prosecutor's office. Lesin, in the presence of Malashenko, called Prosecutor General Ustinov and went to see him. And sometimes several times a day.

- I have a question about these documents that were published today. Talk about them started circulating last week. Where did the leak come from? Who benefits from it? There are different versions on this matter. And the second question is for Mr. Tsimailo regarding Alfred Koch’s statement about the investor who Gazprom allegedly found if they receive shares and sell them to Western investors. What do you think about this?

A. VENEDIKTOV: Let's walk through the protocols. Indeed, the first time the protocol was mentioned was in the Financial Times newspaper that Mr. Lesin had signed a certain protocol. I want to draw your attention to the fact that a certain information attack has occurred. The management of Media-Most was not benefiting from the scandal now, because we were at the finish line of concluding an agreement with Gazprom. Today Mr. Tsimailo can talk about this. The fact that a scandal broke out disrupted the deal to some extent. This has moved to the public plane, but what kind of transactions are there on the public plane? I'm not even talking about the fact that the Financial Times (this is true, no offense to colleagues) was very vigorously quoted exclusively by state radio stations (we are monitoring) immediately, at the same second, which usually do not like this newspaper very much for some reason . Today, by the way, they were not quoted about Koch and Gusinsky, something happened to them. And also TV channels. After this, you can see on the tapes, the RIA agency, with tenacity worthy of better use (I understand that these were not journalists, but the management of the RIA agency made such a decision), began to publish a press release from Gazprom directly back to back with the Financial Times. Draw your conclusions, gentlemen. And finally, the last thing. After Gusinsky, who does not give interviews at all (it is much more difficult for us to get an interview with him than an interview with Clinton), gave us an interview, the government agencies that widely quoted Gazprom did not say a word about it, except for the INTERFAX agency. Then the question is: who benefits from this?

M. BERGER: A few more details. One, in my opinion, quite picturesque, is that yesterday for the first time we openly (this means, over an unsecured telephone) discussed with Gusinsky the possibility of issuing this very sixth protocol. 15 minutes passed after this conversation, and it hung on all possible sites.

A. VENEDIKTOV: In fact, for the first time this appeared on SMI.ru, which is supported by the Effective Policy Foundation, where the head is Gleb Pavlovsky, known to you. That's where these documents came from on the Internet.


M. BERGER: In any case, we have a strong feeling that the person who had headphones on his head and who was listening to this conversation, he pressed the button - with such speed it happened. This is one detail. Another detail to complement what Alexey said about the distinct thoughtfulness of what happened yesterday, just yesterday, since the negotiations were very close to a successful ending for Media-Most. I did an experiment: I read what Vyakhirev said yesterday, separately from everything else. In fact, this is an amazing text. Only Chernomyrdin could say this. There is not a single part of speech, not a single verb, noun, adverb. This all takes place only in conjunction with this morning’s statement from the Gazprom press service. Then you understand what he meant, what he was talking about. Only against this background does the trick work, nothing else. Which, of course, shows that there is a professional behind this with a good understanding of how all this can be arranged. This professional is not us. We cannot in any way direct Rem Ivanovich or induce him or his press service to do anything.

E. KISELEV: According to our information, there was pressure on Rem Vyakhirev to make this statement yesterday. Just as they pressured him to make a statement criticizing the editorial policy of NTV and other Media-Most media outlets in covering events in Chechnya. Just as they put pressure on him in the spring of this year, disrupting an almost finished deal, which resulted in an unsettled debt, which they later began to use as a cudgel to fight NTV and Media-Most.

A.TSIMAILO: If I remember correctly, the question was, who did Koch find? In general, of course, I feel a little sorry for Alfred Koch in the sense that he has to voice two different lines constantly. He gets confused sometimes, and that's the problem. It’s one thing that it was hosted by Gazprom, and then from June 10, if my memory serves me right, it was hosted by Gazprom-Media. This is a matter of debt settlement. Another line, which was built with other characters and according to a different scenario, sometimes intersected with the previous one, but more often not. Therefore, the issue of inconsistencies relates here. Relatively speaking, we declare: fundamentally there is an investor. There is no investor in Gazprom. We say that we are ready to settle, if Gazprom agrees to a settlement in one form or another, we are ready to attract large Western investors, we call them. They tell us: “In fact, no one can sell anything, the company is unprofitable.” Every word says that the company, of course, is good, and we have already found an investor, so why should we settle it, if we can now take everything, as Mikhail Berger said, with easy prosecutorial support, and then sell it normally to a Western investor, since the company is good and , in fact, is unique in the sense that it is the only media concern. There are many good media companies, but there is simply no second such horizontally and vertically integrated company in Russia. Maybe it’s not the best, it’s not that effective - there’s simply no other like it. Therefore, since there is not only great faith from foreign investors, Gazprom understands what can be done about it. Of course, I don’t know who exactly Alfred Koch had in mind. I know only one thing, in principle, we discussed this issue with him (and I think this is the sincere truth): he is really ready, if he receives a controlling stake in Media-Most, to immediately resell it at a profit to a foreign investor. I then had a question: “Why don’t we do this ourselves and simply settle accounts with Gazprom?” He says: “There is only one problem: to show us, at least for a minute, that Media-Most and, above all, NTV are under state control. Then we’ll give it back, no questions asked. We’re even ready to give an undertaking that we’ll give it back later. But we have to show it.” ". In other words, this constant intersection in Koch’s head about one line that needs to be carried out and for which he, in fact, is not responsible, and about the real settlement that Mr. Kiselev spoke about at his speech, gets in the way in his head, so confusion occurs a whole series of statements that we can talk about later if questions arise. But I can once again confirm that such investors exist. From the very beginning, since March, the people who actually determine Gazprom’s policy in this context had no interest in receiving money back in any form: neither from foreign investors nor otherwise. There was a desire to have some kind of external baton, convenient for explaining the “export” behavior. Because if there was a desire, all the documents were prepared by the management of Gazprom in April. Then this is a separate conversation.

- Newsweek. A couple of hours ago, Koch said that Media-Most was in default. I would like to hear your opinion on this matter. Secondly, how do you think they put pressure on Mr. Vyakhirev? How can you threaten him?

A.TSIMAILO: Regarding the second part of the question, this is clearly not for me. Maybe my colleagues will comment on this better. Although the palette is rich. Regarding the first part of the question. Koch stated, I will be close to the text, that Media-Most and its member companies are in default. First, you need to separate one from the other. "Media-Most" is a holding, holding, non-operating company. She holds blocks of shares, these are her assets. Therefore, naturally, all Media-Most companies have completely different situations. At the moment, Media-Most is not in default. Media-Most will be in default if the corresponding claim is brought by Gazprom to court, and Media-Most does not resolve this claim of Gazprom in any way within the prescribed period. What Alfred Reingoldovich meant, I think it would have been better to ask him two hours ago. All other figures given below indicate that Media-Most will be in default due to a 40 million loan from Gazprom... The loans are, firstly, not from Media-Most, but from the NTV television company. Why Alfred Reingoldovich decided that NTV would not pay this amount is also unclear. In fact, today, since the problem is not closed and no claims have been made, even technically Media-Most is not in default, unlike the Russian Federation, which, in our opinion, has been in default since 1999 - refusal of payment under OGVZ.

E. KISELEV: Regarding how they could put pressure on Vyakhirev, I recommend: take proposal No. 6, carefully read its second page. I think you will find several options for answering your question.

- I have a question for Evgeny Kiselev. In your opening speech you suggest that there is an attempt to put political pressure, in particular, on the NTV channel. Is this your first try? Have there been any attempts before? Why is everything that is happening happening right now? What's happening now? Is this an attempt to remove the oligarchs, as Putin promised before the elections, or is this really about freedom of the press?

E. KISELEV: The second part of your question - whether you are talking about an attempt to “equally distance” the oligarchs or about freedom of the press - frankly speaking, surprises me. How can you ask about this after this sixth application has been published? When is it proposed to provide security guarantees, protection of rights and freedoms, including ensuring the right to move freely, choose a place of stay and residence, freely travel outside the Russian Federation and freely return to the Russian Federation for heads of organizations? The leaders of the organizations are Kiselev, Venediktov, Parkhomenko, Berger.

A. VENEDIKTOV: Special thanks to Mikhail Yuryevich Lesin and Alfred Reingoldovich Koch, who provide this to us. I thought that the Russian Constitution ensures this for us. It turns out that this is not enough.

E. KISELEV: By the way, so you know, Lesin went to the Kremlin to get the text of this protocol. He brought it from the Kremlin and handed it to Malashenko with the words: “Here is our version of the political annex to the agreement.” This is not the only case, by the way, when during negotiations Mr. Lesin went to the Kremlin for consultations. According to him, he went to Voloshin. This is how he explained it to Igor Malashenko.

- Okay, but five years ago there were such things?

EVGENY KISELEV: Don’t you remember the operation “face into the snow” (the attack of the special services on the “Bridge” in 1994 - ed . )? Remind your Japanese TV viewers please. We can share with you an archive picture.

- INTERFAX Agency. The question concerns prosecutorial support. In light of today's statements by the leadership of the Prosecutor General's Office, do you admit that new actions, including arrests, are possible against Gusinsky or someone else?

S. PARKHOMENKO: As far as we can assume, the business plan for taking control of the company includes (at least included) options for initiating new criminal cases against the managers of the company separately and the holding as a whole. This is part of the business plan. If we don’t succeed right away, then “we’ll move on,” then expansion will spread to new actors.

- Larisa Mokshina, Ekho Moskvy: I don’t know if you know that Alfred Koch said that in fact the sixth protocol was signed only because this was a condition of Media-Most. And another addition that Gusinsky signed on the 18th. He believes that it is legally impossible to sign his future incapacity in advance. Clarify please.

A. VENEDIKTOV: Regarding what Alfred Reingoldovich says. Yes, indeed, for a very long time, when we discussed this possibility, we could not believe that it is not the state that guarantees our security, protection of rights, that it is not the state that guarantees the cessation of criminal prosecution, and so on, but that Koch, a representative of Gazprom-Media, is doing this. . Therefore, it was said (we understood what we were saying): “How can you guarantee?” “Now,” said Alfred Reingoldovich and brought the signature of state representative Mikhail Yuryevich Lesin. Absolutely right, with your own hands. This is true.

E. KISELEV: I will add. In fact, I think it is a great achievement that we managed to obtain from these gentlemen this document, a documentary certificate signed by the federal minister, a receipt stating that the state is actually engaged in racketeering.

S. PARKHOMENKO: As one of my friends, a professional driver, says, a road sign that is not confirmed by a traffic police officer is invalid. Now there is a situation where the Constitution, which is not confirmed by the minister or the prosecutor, is also not valid.

- If, after all, the NTV channel is handed over to the state, what will happen to the news team of your channel? Is there any truth to the rumor that there is supposedly already some kind of network through which the entire NTV news team is switching to TNT?

E. KISELEV: The rumor that the entire NTV news team is moving to TNT is not true. If control over the NTV television company is established using such methods, I responsibly declare, and let everyone hear it: I will not work with racketeers, with looters, for a single minute. I dare to assure you that all the leading journalists of the company take the same position. You can ask them. But at the same time, I must say that we are really ready to seek a compromise. The proposals that Gusinsky sent to Gazprom after the last negotiations on the 13th, in the Media-Most proposals, essentially say the following. If it’s such a big problem for the authorities that the controlling stake in NTV is in the hands of Media-Most, let’s do it this way: that none of the main shareholders will have a controlling stake. Let's, it's written here in black and white, add an addition to the NTV charter, according to which none of the shareholders has the right to own or dispose of 50 percent or more of the shares. Let some block of shares belong to Media-Most, some to Gazprom, and some to foreign investors. Let none of them own a controlling stake. Moreover, even in the future we are ready to discuss the issue of going further so that even 25% does not belong to anyone. Let it be a company that is publicly owned according to the Western model and governed by a public board, which we have. We are ready to discuss this. As a result of the proposed reforms, the NTV television company, while maintaining its independence, becomes uncontrollable by any specific owner, be it a private shareholder or a government agency. This is entirely consistent with the president's publicly stated commitment to freedom of speech. But the response to our proposal was threats from Gazprom-Media and from the prosecutor’s office. Again, it turns out that the issue is one of political control.


- There was information from the Prosecutor General’s Office that Media-Most was transferring assets to offshore zones. Could you please comment?

A.TSIMAILO: Regarding how the alarm was sounded, I can. If I remember correctly the excerpt from Alfred Reingoldovich’s speech, they found out about this (as did everyone else) in May. They must have been looking for the alarm for a long time to sound the alarm. In fact, what is the duality in the behavior of the head of Gazprom-Media? Even the reason and wording of the title, as I read the title of Mr. Koch’s press conference, it even sounds strange. It’s emotionally clear: they hid something. Moreover, Mr. Kolmogorov immediately sharply increased his attention and wants to contact Interpol to find out how the assets were withdrawn: in a suitcase, on an airplane, and so on. At the same time, the restructuring of Media-Most was known to Gazprom. Second: she was also known to Koch, who himself confirmed this back in May. Three: she was known in the prosecutor's office itself, because the prosecutor's office, under the pretext of initiating a criminal case either on security or against Gusinsky, asked to give up everything related to the economic activity of Media-Most. They've had everything for a long time. Finally, what is the secret? There is a FC Central Bank, there is a Registration Chamber, all documents are open. That is, they are trying to pretend that something happened... What are the assets of Media-Most? If there were ingots, they would indeed have been taken away, but not. The assets of Media-Most are the NTV company, the NTV+ company, and so on. Everyone saw how they work during the tragic events when the Ostankino Tower burned. Everything works, there is no secret. Moreover, back in April, in order to attract foreign investors who did not want to be associated with the political process (and this was obviously a political process even then) of unsettled debts with Media-Most, but were interested in specific companies, we proposed to Gazprom “get that same 25+1 control, a blocking stake in the amount of 211 million in all companies of the holding specifically, in each of the companies of the holding, be it NTV+, NTV and so on. They proposed solving the issue of security in the same way. It is pretending that this is some kind of news or that Media-Most or Gusinsky was trying to take assets somewhere. The situation has absolutely not changed for the worse for Gazprom compared to March. And this is fully reflected in our proposals. In fact, there is confusion all the time, in my opinion. Mr. Koch on July 26, that is, according to version, after the signing of the corresponding agreement, stated that “we are continuing negotiations with Media-Most on the offset of 211.6 million dollars. We just do not agree on the number of shares.” At the same time, in May, knowing fully, it was no secret to anyone, the ownership structure of Media-Most. Therefore, the reason is absolutely far-fetched. Everything that Gazprom had, and even more, it received as a result of this transaction. We must pay tribute to Alfred Koch, he recognized that this is correct and normal - through every company. Although, in fact, for listing, for further sale, this is not so good, because, despite the very high authority of the Gazprom company in our country (indeed, it is recognized as a large, large company as a natural monopolist), the presence in a significant The degree of controlled state-owned companies blocking the shareholders of private companies is not very welcomed by foreign investors. Therefore, perhaps this also caused Koch’s desire to sell it all later.

- Do you know the direct initiators of political pressure on Media-Most? Can you name them? Do you rule out that among the main initiators of this campaign one can name Mr. Voloshin, Lesin, the president himself, and the rest are executors of the will of the state?

A. VENEDIKTOV: I can only judge from my conversations with Vladimir Putin. Vladimir Putin is dissatisfied with the political line of the media included in the company; he considers it wrong. He tells me this openly. That's his right, by the way. I told him: “I understand that you don’t agree, but we don’t agree either.” He believes this line should be changed. This, as far as I can judge, in my interpretation, is the president’s opinion. The President instructed the Minister of Press and Information to participate in this process. I doubt that the President instructed him whether to sign or not sign Protocol No. 6. This is probably not a royal matter. The idea is clear: the president (he has expressed this repeatedly and openly) believes that this political line on various issues is wrong. In this sense, of course, a huge number of people have formed who want to provide a service to the president, guess his will, and do it very quickly. I told the president this. Moreover, I told him: “You understand, there is a political problem that you are trying to solve with us, and there is a group of looters who want to grab a piece of property.” Private satellites fly - what crazy money! You can grab it, I tell the president. There are rights to "Cops" - they are very expensive, by the way. There is the Oktyabr cinema, there is NTV+, there is just the NTV channel. I told him: “Keep in mind that there are looters behind you.” He said, "I understand." Great. The people who are tasked with solving a political problem, in my opinion, are also solving a very important problem: looting, at the same time as a political one. It is no secret that Mr. Voloshin is doing this, it is no secret that the people who signed this document are doing this: Mr. Lesin and Mr. Koch. I told you the people I know.

- Gusinsky said that he was forced to sell this stake at a reduced price. In your estimation, how low is this price? And one more thing: I understand that you have found a foreign investor. What kind of investor is this?

A.TSIMAILO: Partially this answer has already been given. How underestimated? Naturally, this is decided by the market. But I want to draw your attention. If you add up the figures that Alfred Reingoldovich spoke about today, it turns out that the price of Media-Most that they are willing to pay, plus all the debts that they consider, already exceeds a billion. Our understanding is that the assets included in Media-Most, the companies included in Media-Most, are much more expensive, at least twice as expensive, which is in purely monetary terms after deducting the debts that actually exist... I won’t talk about this; it has already been said many times. Naturally, any developing company takes money for development. Well, if this company did not steal this money, but creates it from scratch. Then he goes to receive money on the market from public shareholders. In this case, we believe that the amount called by Koch is underestimated several times. As for investors, I’ll just complement my colleagues a little. Why were we silent? Naturally, we were silent, partly because, on the one hand, my normal negotiations with Alfred Reingoldovich continued regarding the conversion of debt into shares of real companies. Once. They lasted quite a long time and actually ended on the 15th. Secondly, the search for foreign investors or negotiations with existing investors continued, who put forward an absolutely sound idea, which is understandable. No investor wants to invest in a company that is under government pressure. They tell us: “Show that you do not have this pressure or a purely negative attitude from the state.” And this is a really commercial question. If the state is ready to show this, we are ready to invest. The problem had to be resolved. Several options were offered. Options were proposed to secure the installment plan, because even private placement, that is, placement among private investors, is not done in two months. But the state of limbo to which Gazprom was doomed, I think, was to a significant extent a difficult task. In fact, there are not many investors. These are several large funds that traditionally invest money in media companies in Europe and around the world. These are some large media players who, after good placements in Europe, America and the developing world, have accumulated quite decent free money, and so on. That's not the question. Not what Koch found. I have no doubt that he could have found someone else. Maybe they were even the same investors. Moreover, we know some strategic investors, they actually overlap. By name, I mean. These are the same investors that Koch found, but they also came to us. They couldn’t come directly, but they promised that wait, it will be cheaper on the other side. But in fact, the question is very simple, and we understand this perfectly well: the lack of settlement prevents us from raising funds, including for paying off Gazprom, for restructuring. And this is being done, in my opinion, absolutely deliberately, in order to prevent the attraction of these funds. Nobody wants to give up this club and take it off us.

- ...If Mr. Koch was negotiating all the time, then what was the reason for changes in policy? If he was negotiating all the time, then who gave the order and why?

A.TSIMAILO: Gave orders for what?

- To changes in policy.

A.TSIMAILO: I spoke from the very beginning about a certain duality - not in personality, but in business. On the one hand, indeed, Alfred Reingoldovich conducted negotiations on behalf of Gazprom. On the other hand, completely different negotiations were conducted, and not negotiations, but an attempt to take everything by force. This was somewhat of a contradiction. Therefore, when the economic conditions had already been discussed and basically accepted, absolutely the smallest details remained (I assure you, absolutely insignificant), the last, specific question arose: “Guys, how can we formalize the loyalty of the editorial policy to the state?” And that’s it, it all came down to it. No way. Not unless we give up complete control over the media. And if not, then the question is: what are we agreeing on? There are no objections to economics; this has been stated more than once. I don’t know who gave the order.

- You said that the deal was almost completed. Did you realize that after it is completed, you may lose...?

A.TSIMAILO: Can I start with the last one? I say again, let's agree on terms. What kind of negotiations were there and what kind of deal do we have in mind?

- About 300 million.

A.TSIMAILO: There was nothing special to discuss about 300 million. All the numbers were then adjusted: 773... In fact, they came and said: “So, Gusinsky, your option is simple: prison or 300 million and freedom.” What kind of negotiations? It was just announced. I don’t want to quote the words from the folklore that accompanied this proposal. But in reality there are no negotiations. The negotiations were different. There were indeed negotiations. At first it was headed by the deputy chairman of Gazprom. We came there, naturally, to the same thing. Because Koch admitted today that the shares are interesting, they will be worth three times more in a year, in two years, and he will get a big one... Of course. Therefore, in fact, the negotiations were about this. By settlement, this is exactly what I mean. Negotiate - then I don’t understand what can be negotiated about, what Koch proposes to continue negotiations about. He said this in July and August: "Settlement negotiations are ongoing." If he meant that document on July 20, then what is there to talk about? Still signed, give everything and leave. There's nothing to talk about. Therefore, I think that the essence is precisely that one thing is said all the time, but another is meant. This is the first one. Second: regarding debt. What he called 262, what I called, restore your records. I never talked about debt. Firstly, it is not 262 now. There was a loan of 172 million. As he was, so he was. This is called a "zero coupon loan", that is, a loan with a zero interest rate that is capitalized. As a result of three years, it gives a capitalized interest rate of 260. It turns out that, in my opinion, the payment is made in August, so, in fact, there is no debt today, and especially not to Gazprom, to Media-Most in no in this regard. And lastly: Moscow. What did Alfred Reingoldovich mean? There is a debt to Moscow. This is the result of the fact that Media-Most will fulfill certain obligations that, frankly speaking, Media-Most did not make to Moscow. There is a debt. The only thing is that it is due for final repayment in 2003, and it is partially in rubles. But today it really amounts to this amount. This is true.

- Evgenia Albats. Could you please explain in what capacity Minister of Press Lesin is acting in this deal? Does he act as a representative of the government, as one of the founders of the main monopolist, the Ministry of Press, or does he act in some third capacity: a person who has his own interests on the competing channel Russian Television? In which of these or all three capacities does Mr. Lesin act in this case?

E. KISELEV: Mr. Lesin primarily acts as a political supervisor of negotiations on the part of the Russian authorities. Let me remind you that Mr. Lesin is the owner of the office in the Ministry of Press, Television and Radio Broadcasting and Mass Communications. It was in this office that a significant part of the negotiations took place between Lesin and Igor Malashenko, Gusinsky’s first deputy, responsible for political issues in the life of Media-Most. It was from this office, as I said today at this press conference, that Mr. Lesin went to consult with someone in the Kremlin. It was from this office that Mr. Lesin, in the presence of Malashenko, called the prosecutor’s office, went there and then returned with some answers, when will the criminal prosecution against Gusinsky, the search and seizure of documents, the case against Gusinsky’s assistant Mikhail Alexandrov, which It was not initiated at all by chance, because the people who initiated this case knew that he was not just an assistant, but in fact a family member. We have told this story more than once. And the fact that at the last negotiations between Malashenko and Koch in London, one of the leaders of Video International acted as Lesin’s representative, in my opinion, indicates that and as a person closely connected, to put it mildly, in the past, as one of the founders and former leaders of Video International, Mikhail Yuryevich Lesin may also have some personal business interests, including remembering that Video International now controls advertising on two national channels. If they had control over the third channel in one form or another, they would actually become a monopoly on the Russian television advertising market.

S. PARKHOMENKO: In fact, if you look at this very protocol number six with the naked eye, then the role of Mikhail Yuryevich Lesin stands out very clearly and, in my opinion, can be described in one simple expression: he provides a roof. That's all, actually. He is responsible for the roof on this deal. He undertakes, like that Aristarchus, to negotiate with the customs (though in this case not with the customs, but with the prosecutor’s office), to negotiate with Sheremetyevo so that they will be released when necessary, to negotiate with the prosecutor’s office so that the case is dropped when necessary. Its roof. And under this roof Koch negotiates. The roles are described quite accurately and fully correspond to the two types.

- Does the statement on July 18 have any legal force or is it insurance, some kind of cunning move? And one more thing: Koch reasonably said that Vladimir Aleksandrovich’s problem in searching for a certain investor was always that he was looking for a financial investor, not wanting to give up control over the holding, while Gazprom is ready to look for a strategic investor to whom he is ready to give everything holding, which will be much more attractive. With those investors who are involved in this, was it about full control or again some part?

A.TSIMAILO: A strategic investor versus a portfolio investor, the difference is one thing: a strategic investor wants to manage himself. I don’t know of a single positive example, including in the West, when a strategic investor in another country gains control over a media outlet. He may be of Australian origin, but then he must assemble a team on the spot and so on. There is only one difference. Gazprom understands that this is worth it, but does not know what to do with it. He has quite a lot of publications, even television, which absorbs a lot of money. He doesn't know what to do with it. Therefore, he says one thing: “Now we will take it away, but then we urgently need to give it to someone, because while we are looking, it will all fall apart, because people must manage.” This is partly the answer to the question of whether they will change. When we talked about the deal, this deal is different. And the last question: why didn’t we want to sell to a strategic investor? When we are a strategic investor, we want control because we believe that this is what we can do better than others. If a strategic investor comes along who does this well in England or France, he also believes that he does it better than others. Although there is no evidence that he does it better in Russia. Therefore, naturally, a strategic investor very rarely sells to a strategic investor, practically only giving away the entire business altogether. Strategic investors, as a rule, do not remain minority, portfolio investors. This is not their function.

A. VENEDIKTOV: And then, in my opinion, Mr. Koch did not read the information security doctrine signed by the president. I am surprised that such a large Russian company as Gazprom and its representatives have not read this doctrine. After all, there is a state-owned stake in Gazprom. It also says: act domestically, so that Westerners do not come to journalism. Where does Koch want to sell it? He opposes the president. Not good.

- So the “roof” itself allowed it. He said that Lesin gave the go-ahead.

A. VENEDIKTOV: Each roof has its own roof.

- Does the statement on July 18 have any legal meaning?

A.TSIMAILO: In my opinion, there is not a single lawyer among us. But I think that not a single lawyer, lawyer, international lawyer, including American, will sign or testify to a document that has no legal meaning. And then, as far as I know, this procedure is quite common in various pressure situations. This is not a new invention.

E. KISELEV: I would answer the same question this way. This statement, recorded on videotape, recorded on paper, was confirmed by two independent lawyers from such a well-known and reputable international law firm that would never risk its reputation.

-Can you name her?

A.TSIMAILO: We can do this, we just need to ask for their consent.

- What selfish interests might Lesin have in this story? And if you say that he went to consult with Voloshin, you seem to be hinting that he too might be one of those same looters.

S. PARKHOMENKO: In general, for any person who sits high in the political hierarchy, as we know, the problem of the ball is always very important. It is always very important what to play with. You can’t practice without an object all the time, you need to push something back and forth all the time. Politics must be carried out with the help of some object. "Media-Most", unfortunately for all of us, has become such a subject. It is a very great valor: to come to the president and say: "I have solved the Media-Most problem for you." Especially when Ivanov is standing behind you and looking in, it becomes twice as important. In fact, this is partly a reflection on the topic of what suddenly happened to Koch, Lesin and everything else, that these documents were flooded out of the ground yesterday, like those magic beans. Why suddenly, where from, that’s what they decided. We don't know exactly who decided this. Obviously, it was not they who decided this, but someone else who is participating today in the competition for the right to be called the person who solved the “Media-Most” problem. Voloshin is undoubtedly one of them.