"Residents of Crimea are not entitled to self -determination"

Interview of the former Prime Minister of Russia Mikhail Kasyanov-Ilya Azar

After the death of Boris Nemtsov, Mikhail Kasyanov, along with Alexei Navalny, created the next democratic coalition, this time with the aim to the State Duma elections in 2016 and the presidential campaign in 2018. In September 2015, democrats will try themselves in the regional elections, and Kasyanov himself dreams of a faction in the State Duma and talks about potential 30% of voters. The former Prime Minister is sure that the old nickname “Misha is two percent” and his position on the Crimea (he is ready to give him back to Ukraine) will not interfere with this goal. The special correspondent of Medusa Ilya Azar found out from Kasyanov what the meaning of his opposition struggle and sanctions, how to give Ukraine Crimea and when the former prime minister will give way to the young.

- Why do you need to go to regional elections?

- The political party has three of its directions: educational work, mass protests and participation in the elections. As a registered party, we are obliged to use the elections to demonstrate to people that although everything is concreted, we can do some things.

- But if the elections are dishonest, if everything is concreted, why participate? If the Kremlin wants, he will remove you, he will not want to - will not take it off.

- That's it. But if we have mandates in legislative assemblies - this is the expansion of our influence. This is general political logic.

Elections are the only way to change the situation in a peaceful constitutional way, and we are his adherents. Despite the fact that we believe that this is not an election, our participation in them brings an element of freedom or reality in these elections. But we do not attach to these rules because they are wrong.

- Participating in them, you are just adding.

- No, we have our understanding of the Constitution, in the framework of which we act. Yes, obstacles are replaced, including illegal laws. We ignore them, but are forced to live in the restrictions that the power puts on us, therefore, guided by the spirit and letter of the Constitution, we participate in the most important institution of the democratic state.

- Why, probably, the thousandths of the democrats did not work ?

- We regret it. [The leader of the Civil Initiative party Andrei] Nechaev entered the coalition and publicly announced this, knowing that we were walking together on the list of RPR-Parnas. Two days later he disconnected.

We have a year before the election to the Duma, and we do not have the right to lose a single month on all these maneuvers. "Yabloko" refused, we understand. They received an instruction [from above], and although they do not have people in these regions, they will everywhere put forward their lists and try to lubricate our party members. We do not give a damn about technology, we just take a course and go. As it turns out, it will work out. But we must work, must act.

- This is the generic curse of the Democrats, will it never be overcome?

- I want to believe that this is not a birth curse. That after the autumn elections, the remaining colleagues will still join us. The door is open, which we are talking about to everyone: [Vladimir] Ryzhkov, two Gudkov, Nechaev, [Maxim] Katsu.

Yes, of course, every politician knows his price. We are ready for an open conversation about what [who] has the level of influence, how to evaluate already developed political capital.

- Well, the question of the State Duma will arise the question of who should be higher in the list with big chances to get into it.

- We say that a faction should be formed in the State Duma. If the list passes, then there will be about 30 people. Our task is that the next Duma is not controlled by Putin. It is necessary to begin to erode the situation in the country, turn Russia in the direction that we consider correct. Therefore, you need victory. And victory is a faction. It’s good that it be more, and for this we need to go one list.

- You said that your electoral base will reach 30%. But how?

- I'm talking about theoretical potential. These are residents of large cities, the middle class in the first place. Now our support is at the level of 3-10%, so we are talking about the fact that we need to combine our efforts so that 30% become a reality. Maybe not in 2016, but if people feel that even in this situation it is possible to promote their representatives, then people will believe in it. The regional elections in September 2015 will prove that the situation can be changed, even when, it would seem, there are no chances and no cracks.

- And the events of the last year have not reduced theoretical potential?

- No. If we are going with one list with Yabloko, then this is 30%. The question of Ukraine and Krymnash do not reduce the potential, but the feeling of people that you can do something in this situation. This is a problem, because propaganda is so intense, so cynical, so savage. But this 30 percent potential does not disappear anywhere, it just lushes.

- That is, 84% of Putin’s support is unrealistic numbers?

-Firstly, it is 84%-regarding Crimea. Secondly, you need to clear this figure from those people who answer: "Yes, yes, he is ours, just leave me alone." There are 10-15%of these. Therefore, 70% of the Crimea, but another 20% of them - hate Putin and say this: "Putin will leave tomorrow, and our Crimea." They are not publicly ready to say this, because an educated person, a cultural person, cannot say that in the 21st century.

And Putin's rating is about 50%. He never had more than 52%that he received in 2000.

“And Crimea did not add voices to him?”

-Look at the polls of the Levada Center-it has 53% ( in fact -62% or even 82% of those determined with the choice-approx. "Medusa" ). Putin did not electively add in these two years.

- There is also an administrative resource, falsification. What is the point of talking about 30% of theoretical support, if you never get so much?

- Then what, do nothing? Look at the example of Boris Nemtsov. He never lived in Yaroslavl and has nothing to do with him, he spent a month there, walked around the yards, talked with people and received 15% in the city. Even in a situation of “stabbing”, opportunities exist, and you need to use them.

- Does your personal position on the Crimea of ​​the party help or interfere?

- This is a matter of principle. I am not going to change their position or make an obstacle to such a fundamental issue only so that our party or our coalition liked voters.

Yes, this narrows possible potential, but we cannot compete with the parliamentary parties for voters who like Putin. [This is their mistake], because they cannot become patriotic than Putin, because in his hands [propaganda] machine.

- I have many familiar liberal warehouses that do not support Putin, but the Russian Crimea for them is historical justice.

- Yes, and I have a lot of such acquaintances.

- It turns out that you lose these people.

- No. The question of Crimea for them may not be decisive in the elections.

- Your coalition partner Navalny said that Crimea is not a sandwich. In the sense that people cannot be scattered, and since they were dishonestly taken by Crimea, then you will have to live somehow with it. Do you not share this position?

- What I say does not mean that when we come to power, the next day we will give the Crimea. There is international law, there are rules by which such issues are resolved. They will be resolved only with the Ukrainian authorities, with the participation of representatives of different organizations who are engaged in this, in particular, the OSCE.

If decisions are made that in such and such a period of time, through such and such procedures, with the help of such steps you need to give Crimea, it will be done. This does not mean that we ignore the opinion of people. There was a survey in Crimea, legally in common with the word “referendum”. We will once again conduct a survey of public opinion together with the Ukrainian authorities and will discuss on this topic with the entire world community.

Today we [in the coalition] say that we ourselves initiate the consideration of the question of what to do with the Crimea, which was illegally annexed.

-Once you softened your position compared to the famous interview to French journalists.

- No, they just did not ask about the decision procedures, and the translation was triple - from English to French, and then also to Russian.

-And yet, we will imagine such a very likely scenario: Ukraine will require Crimea to return, the world community will support it, and the inhabitants of Crimea will say that they do not want to go back. Then what to do?

- We will do as it should be by international law. Residents of Crimea want or do not want - this is a matter of public opinion, we are talking about the rule of law.

Residents of Crimea do not have the right to self -determination. There is no such norm of international law. There are three most numerous nationality in Crimea: Russians, Ukrainians and Crimean Tatars. Russians, Russian people and Ukrainians already have their own states, these nations are self -destroyed. Only the Crimean Tatars, perhaps, have the right to raise the question of self -determination under the UN Charter.

- In Kosovo, too, Albanians lived in front of the department, the Albanian nation was also self -destroyed.

- There was genocide, but it was not here. In the Crimea or in Eastern Ukraine there is not a single registered complaint to international or Russian organizations on the infringement of Russians or Russian -speaking. Many countries did not like to recognize Kosovo, but they were forced to save people with this decision, and this was done eight years after the conflict, and not within two weeks.

- Many justify the accession of Crimea by the fact that Russia prevented possible genocide in Crimea. And how it would be, we will never know.

- This is complete nonsense. Why in Kyiv or in Lviv they are not exterminated by Russians? This is nonsense, this is an invented story, and it seems funnly and funnier every day.

- If you were president and assistants and security forces would say that if we do not take the Crimea, the Russian Black Sea Fleet will be expelled from there, you would not do anything?

-Firstly, I would not be in such a situation, being the president. If you recall the period when we were in power with Putin, then we had a great relationship with NATO and with the West. I then said that I dream that my country will soon become a member of NATO. Putin said that he does not exclude this. There have been no new actions from the West since then. But from the Russian authorities there was a serious transformation of the one who is the enemy and who is not.

In May 2003, at a summit in St. Petersburg, we, sitting at the table with Putin and the leaders of the European Union, announced that now we are strategic partners. We already had four spaces of cooperation, we announced that we were starting preparations for the visa -free zone from Lisbon to Vladivostok. We were an example to follow for all other CIS countries.

But very soon, Russia ceased to be an example to follow, and the Ukrainians made this choice without us. And if I were president, then by 2014 we would be much more integrated into the European Union, and such problems could not have arisen.

- And in the event of a war with Southern Ossetia, would you not answer the actions of Mikhail Saakashvili?

- The Russian Federation was preparing for aggression in South Ossetia for more than six months, and our troops concentrated there. Saakashvili was provoked by Russian authorities.

- That is, the opinion that the United States and Europe are not interested in strong Russia and want to ruin it or, at least, weaken, you do not share at all?

- Europe and America want to see Russia the same as they are strong, democratic and predictable. They live by one family of the European Union and know that the right ones will come to power or socialists, all basic values ​​will remain the same. And since we made a European choice - and we made it by adopting the Constitution of the Democratic State, having entered the Council of Europe and the OSCE - we are treated as members of this family, simply, so to speak, with the problems of the current period.

Therefore, I [Europeans] urge to criticize our power. Because we are part of Europe, we just got lost. I hope that temporarily. And therefore their duty is to stop this power. And to share the power and the people who adopted the constitution in the referendum. This authorities are trying to direct us the other way.

-Well, there are some geopolitical interests, different countries compete in different places of the planet-in the Middle East, in Central Asia, the CIS.

- This is fine. Here, Europe with America competes, but they are not fighting with each other. Everyone is trying to increase their economic potential so that people live better in order to dominate the markets. Competition is a way of prosperity. This is the condition for the existence of a civilized world.

- That is, it was not the United States that arranged a Maidan to put pro -American power in Ukraine and thereby annoy Russia?

- No, they and Europeans sympathized with the Maidan, but did not organize anything. The power was weakened by what Yanukovych himself did. He announced the European choice and was ready to sign an agreement. It’s just that his people worked poorly, and he commanded unprofessional.

There were problems in this agreement, but he did not bother to control the entire course of many months of negotiations as the president. And when it was necessary to sign, he got acquainted with him, and Putin said to him: “Look what you sign. You are generally ruining the country now. ” When Yanukovych realized the problem, then, of course, he was frightened, which provoked further actions.

- There is such an opinion that if at first there was a rapprochement with Europe, then Putin realized that Europe and the USA did not have a friendly manner of Russia, deploying the forces in Europe - and was offended that they rejected its arms.

- This is wrong. The theme of about appeared because of the Iranian nuclear dossier, and Russia was invited to participate in this pro. It was demonstrated that it was not aimed at Russia, but Putin already made his Munich speech, saying that the country was surrounded by enemies, and we must fight, and not to form more confidence between NATO and Russia.

Putin can say that now in St. Petersburg [at the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum], but there is no trust, and therefore there will be no investments. There was no trust, and, of course, a certain tension and fear appeared. Both sides begin to carefully look at each action and such an action can be interpreted more seriously than it was worth it. So the cold war is growing.

- You traveled to the United States,turned to Congress with a proposal to impose sanctions against a number of Russian journalists. How much is it appropriate to complain to another state about its fellow citizens?

- I go there regularly, once or twice a year. Firstly, I did not complain. At one time, I lobbied together with Boris Nemtsov by the adoption of the so -called Magnitsky law - so that people who violate human rights are deprived of privileges. After all, to come to the United States and use their financial system for their prosperity is not a punishment, but a privilege.

Secondly, these are not journalists, but propagandists. These people violated human rights in relation to Boris Nemtsov, they called for reprisal.

- You support sanctions, from which, one way or another, the Russian economy suffers, and behind it - people who exist in this economy. How much desire to eliminate Putin thanks to these sanctions justifies funds?

- This is Putin’s fault, because these sanctions are directed against him and against the people who surround him, make illegal decisions or fulfill them. The second direction of sanctions is against the instruments in Putin’s hands, against state corporations, Gazprom, Rosneft, state banks.

If Putin were a politician, he would understand that the world community tells him that his policy is wrong, and he should change it. He does not do this, but turns problems on citizens. Western sanctions are correct - they are not against citizens. No one introduced barriers to the supply of medicines or goods necessary for citizens. Restrictions on the actions of those tools by which Putin rules, and the people, unfortunately, have nothing or have very little from the work of these corporations, were introduced.

-But due to sanctions, prices are also rising.

-Prices are rising because of another, but [sanctions] exacerbate. The situation of today was inevitable because of the economic policy (or its absence) in the last 10 years. Problems would inevitably happen in a year or two. And the fault of this is not European countries that react to the unacceptable policy of Russia, which destroys the architecture of European security, but those who destroy this security. And they must realize it.

There was an unreasonable increase in state expenses for all kinds of ineffective goals. The drop in oil prices accelerated the fall [economy]. The increase in prices is associated with both the devaluation of the ruble, and with inflation, which is associated with the lack of economic growth, because there is no investment. Moreover, those investors who were fled. Therefore, [price growth] is associated with the policy of the current authorities.

-But is the opposition for the past ten to fifteen years not waiting for the price of oil to fall, and it will be possible to arrange rallies, including for economic motives?

— Я эти десять лет не сидел, не ждал. Когда в 2004 году после Беслана стали меняться законы, я сразу понял, к чему это ведет. Люди сразу не разобрались, а когда поняли, что происходит, уже пошел передел собственности, и было поздно. Плюс цена на нефть была высокая, люди зарабатывали неплохо, сильно не напрягались.

— Но пока экономика не рухнет, пока не начнут задерживать зарплату повсеместно, люди, в общем-то, прислушиваться к критике политической не будут?

— Если мы говорим о 30% теоретического потенциала, то эти люди сейчас все прекрасно понимают. Им не нужно, чтобы страна упала, чтобы они жили в нищете. Они хотят, чтобы их уважали и давали возможность применять свой потенциал в жизни. Они хотят просто, чтобы им давали возможность нормально жить и не пытались вместо них сформировать их будущее.

Некоторые из них заблуждаются по вопросам Крыма и Украины, но это вопрос пропаганды. Она для нас — главная проблема. Нужно, чтобы нам не мешали, дали доступ к телевидению или хотя бы не затаптывали и не очерняли каждый день, не называли нас предателями. Люди же начинают волей-неволей к этому привыкать. Пускай они в это не верят, но начинают бояться, как бы чего не вышло, потому что КГБ-шный дух все больше и больше появляется в реальной жизни. Если бы нас так не прессовали, то средний класс в крупных городах, может, не выходил бы на улицы, но голосовал бы за нас. Если бы были выборы.

— Попасть в Думу — это одно, а задача максимум — сменить власть. Что, как я понимаю из нашего разговора, невозможно, пока экономика не рухнет.

— В ближайшие год-два, наверное, полностью сменить власть невозможно. Но если Путин и его люди вдруг осознают, что крах неизбежен — они пока не хотят в это верить, считая, что всегда есть способ проскочить, — то они могут начать заниматься стратегией своего ухода. Для того, чтобы не нести ответственность, когда 60% решат смести всех и вся. Тогда может быть плавный, выборный вариант смены власти. В регионах — сегодня, в Госдуме — завтра, на президентских выборах в 2018 году.

— Но если ваша база 30%, как тогда выиграть на выборах президента?

— Это огромное количество, это как раз и есть выигрыш на президентских выборах. Если 30% придут голосовать, то это будет президент этих 30%. Если мы говорим о ядре, то это 15% — люди, которые формируют политический курс в той или иной стране. Это наиболее активные люди, творческая интеллигенция, научная интеллигенция, деловая среда.

— Ну в этом смысле, тогда и Навальный — мэр 30% Москвы. And what? Он же не мэр. Последний «Марш мира» был в сентябре, после этого еще был весенний марш памяти Немцова. Почему не проходят массовые акции протеста?

— Это связано с общим климатом. Во-первых, люди боятся, это пропаганда работает. Во-вторых, люди не видят следующего хода за такой акцией протеста.

Сейчас, конечно, ситуация будет ухудшаться, и бытовые условия людей будут пододвигать к тому, чтобы они присоединились к акциям протеста. Но ситуация не меняется галопирующим способом, как это бывало в экономике прежде. Она немножко стабилизировалась, а российские граждане всегда готовы терпеть. Главное, чтобы была какая-то стабильность.

— То есть вы все-таки согласны, что политическая ситуация не может людей вывести на улицы в отличие от экономической?

— На ту же Болотную люди вышли из-за выборов. Сейчас нет такого единовременного события. Из-за фонда «Династия» вышли ученые и все симпатизирующие им люди в Москве. Должно какое-то событие быть или накопление факторов, которые формируют какое-то еще событие социального масштаба. So far, this is not.

— Насколько вообще уместно выходить на марши мира с украинскими флагами, ведь все-таки украинская армия ведет войну, и в результате ее действий так или иначе гибнут люди?

— Абсолютно уместно, потому что мы смотрим в корень проблемы, а корень один — Путин. Он виновник войны и его команда. Это безответственное поведение, неприемлемая политика в XXI веке. Все отсюда вытекает, остальное все камуфляж.

Украина имеет право на защиту своего суверенитета и защищает его, как может. Да, проблемы есть, нарушения прав человека есть там. There is a war. Запад долго осмысливал ситуацию, по Грузии проглотил это дело, а здесь решил, что перебор, и занял принципиальную позицию. Эта позиция и особенно трансатлантическое единство вводят в шок нашу нынешнюю правящую группу. Они считали, что сейчас отделят врага, США, от Европы. Они продолжают считать, что выгодно, а что невыгодно. Они пытаются учить этому европейские государства. Но тут различия в мировоззрении, ведь у Путина и его окружения представления, что в этом мире все покупается. Они были в шоке, когда узнали, что французский президент отказался от «Мистралей» и готов платить миллиардный штраф. Во Франции есть ценности, на которых основана жизнь всего французского общества и всех других европейских сообществ.

— Выход из ситуации на востоке Украины — это все-таки превращение ДНР и ЛНР в условное Приднестровье или переход этих территорий под контроль Украины?

— Конечно, ДНР и ЛНР нужно [отдать Украине], вообще никакого разговора на эту тему.

— А что делать с сепаратистами?

— Их две тысячи человек. Они должны в тюрьме сидеть.

— А с людьми что делать?

— Люди обмануты, но им должны быть компенсированы все потери.

— Россией?

— Каких властей — это уже вопрос следующий. Вопрос переговоров о том, что делать с Донбассом и тем ущербом, который нанесен вот этой российской агрессией.

— Но пока у власти Путин, вы думаете, будут там созданы квазигосударства?

— Я верю, что Минские соглашения могут быть исполнены и цели, которые эти соглашения ставят, будут достигнуты.

— Глава Крыма предлагал отдать вас Америке. При этом Саакашвили стал губернатором Одесской области. Если бы вам Украина предложила стать, например, министром экономики, вы бы согласились?

- No.

- Why?

— У меня другие цели. Я хочу здесь изменить ситуацию. У меня нет задач найти себе применение хоть где-либо.

— А в нашем государстве?

— Кто какую функцию должен [в случае прихода демократической коалиции к власти] исполнять — это отдельный разговор. Для меня это не является самоцелью или принципиальным вопросом. Я хочу, чтобы наша команда пришла к власти, но что я буду в этом случае делать — вопрос десятый. Если коалиция примет решение выдвинуть меня в президенты — я исполню эту миссию.

— Вы уже пробовали один раз, и неудачно.

— Власть не пустила, что же делать. И сейчас может не пустить. Но, может, и допустят, необязательно меня. Я могу и на другом участке быть. Цель моей политической деятельности — изменить ситуацию, чтобы к власти пришла команда и задала политический курс, который соответствует моему представлению о будущем страны.

— Вы думаете, что люди забыли про «Мишу-два процента»?

— Это [прозвище] было придумано искусственно в конце 1990-х и вскоре исчезло. А потом Путин вспомнил после моего ухода и запустил в массовый тираж по всей пропагандистской машине.

— Есть мнение, что убийство Немцова, а потом отравление — если это было отравление — Владимира Кара-Мурзы — это месть за лоббирование списка Магнитского. Не боитесь, что вы, также принимавший в этом участие, на очереди?

— Конечно, общая угроза есть, она для любого человека есть. Просто тот, кто занимается более чувствительными и принципиальными вещами, конечно, более подвержен такой угрозе. Наши активисты в регионах подвергаются, можно сказать, репрессиям. Например, нашему Егору Савину в Новосибирске поджигали автомобиль, а его жене неоднократно угрожали.

— Но Немцова все-таки убили люди, которые наслушались пропаганды, или это был заказ властей определенного уровня?

— Я не думаю, что убийство Бориса — это заказ высокой российской власти. Не исключаю какого-то взаимодействия на низком уровне, но я просто не знаю.

— Кадыров — это высокий или низкий уровень?

— Если Кадыров имеет отношение, то это не заказ Кремля.

— Но вы считаете, что те, кто арестован по делу Немцова, — это реальные исполнители?

— Я верю адвокатам, которые представляют интересы семьи Бориса, которые общаются со следователями. У меня нет другого источника информации. Раз нет следственных действий, то у людей начинаются всякие сомнения, почему верховная власть не делает ничего для этого, почему не идет расследование так, как должно было бы идти.

— Не хочется вас обижать, но даже в среде оппозиционеров есть представление о том, что тот же Навальный — это будущее страны, а вы — это прошлое, которое к тому же имеет негативный, пусть пропагандистский, шлейф. Вы не думали, отойти в сторону, чтобы дать дорогу молодым?

— Отходить я не хочу, потому что некому прийти. Вот когда молодых накопится в достаточном объеме, тогда, возможно, я и приму решение уйти. Пока актуальность и необходимость моего присутствия, хотел бы я этого или не хотел, как раз возрастает на этом временном отрезке.

Ilya Azar

Moscow