What Medvedev said

Former President Medvedev served as prime minister for the first six months and gave an extensive interview about this to the Kommersant newspaper. Medvedev told a lot of things: about relations with Georgia, the USA and the opposition, about United Russia and the future of the economies of Russia and Europe, about pensions, privatization and how he is concerned about the Magnitsky law. For those who are unable to read the entire interview from beginning to end, we offer a digest of this historical document.

About the government

“It doesn’t mean that now all people in the government are combed with the same brush and there are no different positions in the government. It is absolutely normal that members of the government have different points of view on a specific issue. I adhere to a simple position here: before a decision is made, it should be discussed as much as possible broadly and openly. Once a decision is made, the discussions end and the decision must be implemented."

About the economic situation

“Now the situation in the economy is not a crisis, but it is pre-storm... Let me remind you how my work as chairman of the government began. After the president signed the decrees, I gathered all members of the government and said: we are faced with very practical tasks. (. ..) It’s not for me to judge what was successful and what was not.”

About privatization

“Is privatization a value or a prosaic mechanism for the alienation of state property? At some point I came to the conclusion that privatization in Russia is not just a transfer of property from the state to private hands. It is an ideologeme that sets the vector of development of the country, which creates an effective owner, which means that we are not building a state-controlled economy, state capitalism."

About unanimity

“If I, for example, were deputy prime minister for social issues (and at some point, in fact, this is what I was doing as part of national projects), I would have my own view on the budget. If I were the minister of finance, I would probably have in mind a point of view similar to the views of Anton Siluanov or Alexei Kudrin. As the French say, the position obliges: my workplace dictates my priorities. On the other hand, the government is a team of like-minded people, and diametrically opposed positions on a whole range of issues. “No, of course, that’s impossible.”

About Kudrin

“It seemed to me, for example, that my economic views did not differ so radically from the views of Mr. Kudrin. But it turned out that they did: he directly told me about this, and I had to fire him. This also happens. By the way, I suspect that he When I said this, I didn’t think about the consequences. But this is already an old story. By the way, we were just sitting at this table recently, he came in for tea (...) He came and said: “Exactly a year ago. , day after day, you fired me." We sat with him and talked about business. He: "Well, I will criticize the government." I answer: "That's right, Alexey Leonidovich, criticize!" He says: "Well, I will work on various projects." - "Very good!"

About Serdyukov

“You can do nothing, but you can carry out reforms. Anatoly Serdyukov carried them out. With mistakes, probably, but I have no doubt that these reforms have actually begun. (...) Salaries, allowances have become fundamentally different, the outflow of people from the armed forces has stopped. Those who served received and are receiving apartments. And if we talk about salaries, you know, although a person cannot be completely satisfied with his salary, it is now absolutely comparable to the corresponding salary of military personnel. in Europe. And it is no longer so significantly different from the same monetary content in the USA."

About the opposition

“There is a legal opposition and an illegal opposition. The legal opposition is all those who are members of legal political movements or political parties. The term “non-parliamentary opposition” seems to me more correct. Well, I don’t know what they mean. To judge about what happened in 1937, you need to understand the mood of 1937. It is enough to turn to the sources to understand that our society today is so different from the society of the 1930s in the Soviet Union that it is impossible to even imagine anything like that. ".

About libel

“I had my own position on this issue. It was that this article should be decriminalized. You shouldn’t be jailed for libel. And I did it. Then another legal structure arose: libel is a socially dangerous act, but you can’t commit slander put in prison. Responsibility for it should be different, mainly property. This position seems acceptable to me. I tell you very frankly: if libel is declared a socially dangerous act, but does not entail imprisonment, then it seems to me that such a model of responsibility is quite possible." .

About high treason

“To understand whether this is a repressive thing or an adjustment of individual elements of the disposition of the article on high treason, it is necessary for legal practice to arise. Let’s wait for it.”

About the expansion of Moscow

“If you ask my opinion, I’ll tell you straight away: this is too much for our state. 20 million people (Moscow and the region) is a seventh of the country. I think it’s difficult to manage. Although there will probably be similar ideas. “In my opinion, if we talk about unification, then, for example, the unification of St. Petersburg and the region is a much more realistic task.”

About the pension system

“The current pension system, of course, is not ugly, but, like any pension system, it needs improvement.”

About privatization

“We will never create a German model, because we are not Germans. I believe that we must do everything in our power to make the situation as transparent as possible and avoid the participation of state-owned companies in privatization. This does not mean that this will never, under any circumstances there will be no conditions."

About the economic crisis in Europe

Medvedev has very rosy ideas about the outcome of the crisis in European countries, although he does not rule out a risk for the euro: “I believe that they will overcome this crisis. Let them not think that we are wiping away the tears of our partners: the EU economy is one of the strongest economies in the world along with American and Chinese."

About the Magnitsky law

“It is generally unacceptable for one country to try to dictate its will to another country in this way. The doctrine of advanced, if you like, American sovereignty is a poor-quality doctrine. When American courts try to consider disputes arising between foreign persons, when American justice tries to pass judgment on the entire territory of the planet, when American intelligence services seize people and take them to US territory in order to later try them or to hold them without trial... I don’t want to discuss this topic further.”

About Georgia

“There are some signals coming from there that it would be good to establish contacts, not yet at the diplomatic level, although, let me remind you, it was Georgia, not the Russian Federation, that broke off diplomatic relations. We will pay close attention to these signals. I don’t see anything wrong with that “In order to restore humanitarian cooperation, our planes are flying, contacts between people, thank God, continue, cultural ties have been preserved, trade and economic relations can also be restored.”

About "United Russia"

“When I made the decision to join the party and connect my political future with United Russia, I thought about how this would affect both the party itself and people’s attitude towards me. And if I thought that this work would damage the overall political structure, I would never take it up. As it seems to me, everything is going well so far, not ideal, of course, but normal.”

About the Bolotnoye case

"You can't beat police officers, you can't break the law, you can't destroy other people's property. You'll have to answer for this."