"Russia may not live so much"

Harry Kasparov answers Mikhail Khodorkovsky and Alexei Navalny

The world chess champion and public figure Harry Kasparov, who flew to Norway at the Freedom forum in Oslo , meets there with ex-head of the Yukos Mikhail Khodorkovsky, whose statements about the Crimea, as well as the statements of the Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny, commented on the eve of his blog : “Khodorkovsky and Navalny Ignil opposition ". Here are fragments of this text:

"The resonant interviews of Alexei Navalny and Mikhail Khodorkovsky , in which, with varying degrees of categoricality, the thesis was that Russia should not return Crimea to Ukraine, caused fierce disputes."

"The logical conclusion is that there is no essential alternative to Putin in Russia. Two bright opposition leaders, in the eyes of many personifying" European Russia ", made it clear that their differences from Putin in the" Crimean question "are purely stylistic."

"The statements of Navalny and Khodorkovsky give reason to believe that they are ready to adjust their political position to the opinion of the majority, covered by pseudopatriotic hysteria under the sensitive guardianship of the Putin agitprop."

"The only way to struggle with such power is the preservation of meanings. Instead of flirting with stupefied propaganda by the masses, the opposition should, as was done by Andrei Dmitrievich Sakharov, who was chosen repeatedly for" political naivety ", to affirm simple truths."

In an interview with Radio, Freedom Kasparov continued his reasoning that, in his opinion, he is the priority task of the opposition:

- In the conditions of a personified dictatorship, which frankly uses fascist ideology, this is an attempt to enlighten, we must restore the system of meanings. Alas, you have to repeat that white is white, black is black. Because today the country lives in an atmosphere of total lies, which is broadcast in 24/7 of the state propaganda machine. In these conditions, seriously rely on the results of polls of public opinion, moreover, to build some long-term concept, it seems to me, is absolutely unproductive, and, moreover, this creates a fundamentally incorrect image of the Russian opposition. According to some issues, people who consider themselves opposition should, as it seems to me, striking with the authorities.

The capture of Crimea and support for separatist movements in the Donbass, the open invasion of Russian troops is a continuation of a policy that has only one final goal, maintaining the Putin dictatorial regime

-But is there an opposition in Russia, which supports the slogan of the unconditional return of Crimea, at least a significant part of the society that is ready to listen to this?

- In this case, everyone is responsible for themselves. It was not by chance that I gave the example of Andrei Dmitrievich Sakharov, he was in much greater loneliness, when he spoke things that seem obvious today, but then they demanded incredible courage. The annexation of Crimea is a war crime, it is a violation of all interstate obligations that Russia has taken over since 1991. If we are talking about a fundamentally different concept of power in Russia, if we are talking about the dismantling of the Putin dictatorship and the construction of a democratic state, then we must treat international law with the same proper respect, as we are Russian right. Because the opposition is quite one opposed to abuse of power within the country. But the capture of Crimea and support for separatist movements first in the Donbass, and then the open invasion of the Russian troops is a continuation of the same policy, criminal policy, which has only one final goal, namely the maintenance of the Putin dictatorial regime. Not to notice that these things are interconnected, it seems to me that this is wrong.

I think that Russia will not live as much as Putin can live

-In your article, you say that both Khodorkovsky and Navalny expect in some form of the fall of the Putin regime. Do you have ideas about how this can happen?

- The strength and weakness of the dictatorships like Putinskaya is that no one knows this. If we knew this with you, then the KGB and the dictatorship would have known that, and this would not have happened. This is good news. The bad news is that the longer the dictator is in power, which cleans the political space, the more turbulent the transition period will be. Of course, the dictator can die from natural causes. I think that Russia will not live as much as Putin can live. Therefore, I think, there will be some internal events, a nasty that will inevitably be caused by economic and political problems in which Russia is more and more deeply immersed. And who and how will help Putin from power, it is impossible to do such a prediction today. It is obvious that the situation in Putin’s care will inevitably be unpredictable due to the fact that the dictator creates a kind of system of balancing his own power in order to maneuver between different groups that make up the support of the regime - this is actually its spine. Therefore, the disappearance of the spine leads, of course, to the collapse of the entire structure. It is quite obvious that Russia's path to the European community, integration into Europe is impossible without the problem of Crimea to be immediately and categorically resolved. Because this is not a matter of negotiations-this is a question that a crime has been committed, for this it will be necessary for someone, firstly, to answer, and secondly, Russia will have to find a civilized way to get out of this situation with minimal losses for the country.

Aggression has been committed, and seriously believe that they will build new Russia with such unfit tools, it seems to me that it is wrong

- You propose uncompromisingly to follow a policy based on values, while Khodorkovsky and Navalny can consider it necessary to take into account significant nationalist sentiments in Russian society. Perhaps they maneuver, they have some long-term strategy.

- I am not engaged in politics in the form in which Khodorkovsky and Navalny are engaged. They, of course, have some political ambitions, I do not have them. It seems to me that today it is impossible to talk about the future of the country, about the civilized democratic society that we want to build, and at the same time rely on what you called nationalist beliefs. In fact, this is not a question of how some part of the population of Russia relates to ethnic problems within the country. Aggression has been committed, and therefore seriously believe that they will build a new Russia with such unfit tools, it seems to me, it is wrong. Russia will have to fulfill its own international obligations. Since 1991, Russia consistently signed documents that were ratified by parliaments, and these documents clearly indicate the boundaries of both Russia and Ukraine.

If a worthy rebuff was given in Crimea, there would be no Donbass

- Do you exaggerate the fundamental attitude to this in the West? Such a “soft” position of the West was repeatedly discussed when Russia annexed Crimea. And perhaps Navalny and Khodorkovsky, other people proceed from the fact that if Putin’s regime falls, then some transitional regime can “play” Crimea.

- The regime that will play Crimea will not be transitional. In violation of obligations that are committed criminally, do not play. Maybe someone in the West would be ready to agree with the annexation of Crimea. But I do not think that in the near future we will see the Western states that will be ready to admit it. Of course, there are many politicians in the West, perhaps, of their personal interests and political cowardice, are ready to go for it. We went through this in 1938. The result of such a policy will not be the fall of the Putin regime, but further aggression. Therefore, to pretend today that you can look for some kind of compromise outside the right, is just to encourage the aggressor. If a worthy rebuff was given in Crimea, there would be no Donbass. Accordingly, if the West was ready to go to real sanctions, then rather we could see a more rapid development of events in Russia. And now, in my opinion, it is quite obvious that Putin just looks around and chooses the direction of the next blow. The policy of such peace or searching for a compromise behind the legal framework will inevitably incite his appetite. His power is largely based on the image of the land collector. Therefore, there is no doubt that, having such a rich choice for the next blow - the Baltic states, Ukraine, Azerbaijan, Georgia and Kazakhstan - Putin will find a new goal, because it becomes, more precisely, already became, a new ridge of Putin's propaganda.

It makes no sense to convince Mikhail Borisovich

- Now in Oslo you can face Mikhail Khodorkovsky, would you like to try to convince him?

- We will certainly meet. I think a good constructive conversation will take place. But I know very well that it is pointless to publish Mikhail Borisovich. He is a man with formed beliefs. In this case, this is his political position, his plans, which, I think, he thought well. This position seems to me incorrect and extremely dangerous for the future of our country.

The dismantling of the Putin dictatorship is a common goal for both Khodorkovsky, and for Navalny, and for me

- Could you imagine the form of joint work with Khodorkovsky?

-In fact, it seems to me that some things are swollen, because you need to create some kind of story. It is quite obvious that the dismantling of the Putin’s dictatorship is a common goal for Khodorkovsky, Navalny, and for me, and for many other people whose opinion on the issue of Crimea diverges. But this does not mean that we will be different about the prospects of dismantling the regime that threatens the future of our country, here we all agree with this. And the fact that today various positions are determined on the issue of Crimea, in principle, should be so. This is a question that, quite obvious, will not be resolved when in power Putin, and there are different positions with which people have come up with now. I think that such a discussion is going on now - that's good.

You need to build your own concept of the future

- People who represent to one degree or another Russian opposition that they remain now as practical activities, except to declare their position?

- Again, we begin to play with the meanings. Because the word "opposition" for many is associated with some kind of coordinate system, at least conditionally democratic. These are some parties, some debate, some elections. In Russia, a power that does not change in the elections. This is Putin’s personified dictatorship, and, accordingly, the entire system of vertical power has already been cemented. The fact that many continue to pretend that something can happen in the elections in Russia, maybe they can change one municipal candidate, it is clear that they will not change mayors. Therefore, the political activity, as it was in Russia 6-7 years ago, is impossible today, this regime is in a state of power methods to disperse any action that may seem fundamentally dangerous. It is quite obvious that today any activity in Russia will continue exactly as much as the regime is ready to put up with it, believing that this activity can to one degree or another or help its goals, or at least not interfere, and it will be more expensive to overclock. Therefore, you just need to build your own concept of the future. The fall of the regime is the result of the enlightenment of people who, I think, will not be in this completely paranoid hysteria associated with the "Crimean" for an infinitely long time. Economic sanctions are still biting, the ruble situation looks very difficult, oil prices fall. One must be prepared for the fact that a new situation will arise in which the opposition will need to offer something. But I do not think that today some specific actions directly in Russia can change something. We see how hard the authorities are straightened even with a hint of some political activity that goes beyond the permitted framework.