“There is no contradiction” - letter to the editor

In NT 9 of March 21, 2016, published a response Lev Shlosberg, a member of the Federal Political Committee of the Yabloko Party, to Dmitry Oreshkin's text "The Unbending Grandmother" about Grigory Yavlinsky. regular contributor NT disagrees with Schlosberg's criticism

Dear Lev Markovich!

I am not a fan of public correspondence, but since you responded to my article about Yabloko with an open letter, I will have to respond in this genre as well.

In your opinion, the essence of the article is the assertion that the Kremlin sends Yabloko to the elections and, through “calls from the curator”, requires the party not to negotiate with other democrats, but to negotiate with the Kremlin in order to achieve the political liquidation of the party in this way. This, sorry, is nonsense. There is nothing in the article about the Kremlin "sending" Yabloko to the elections and giving him a "political task". There is also no expression “messengers of the Kremlin”, which you give in quotation marks as an alleged quote from my article.

Don't take readers for babies. If the Kremlin really wanted to liquidate your party, it would have been enough for it to draw 2.9% instead of 3.4% in 2011 and leave it without federal funding. But the Kremlin is not at all interested in liquidating Yabloko – it is better to use its “hardness” to block a possible unification of democratic forces. Hence the title of the article - "Unbending Grandmother". This party feature has the consequence:

a) unwillingness to cooperate with other democratic associations (the invitation of Dmitry Gudkov and Vladimir Ryzhkov is a sure step, but it doesn’t make any difference; voters were waiting for the lists to be combined);

b) loss of popularity and downward electoral dynamics;

c) detachment from reality: without unification with the Democratic Coalition, the party list of Yabloko is unlikely to get into the Duma. At the same time, when merged, it is guaranteed to pass, since the “electoral train” is also added to the sum of the nuclear electorates.

But why, after the fundamental condemnation of Alexei Navalny for "Nazism", "imperialism" and "populism", party publicists just as fundamentally condemn him for not calling on his "Nazi, imperialist", etc. supporters to vote for Yabloko?

Lev Markovich, try to look at your letter through the eyes of potential voters, including those who want an answer to the questions raised in the article. If Mikhail Khodorkovsky confidentially offered to help Yabloko with money, why did you begin to "rebuff" him in public space? It would have been enough to refuse in the same confidential manner (if the money was indeed offered, which Khodorkovsky denies). Do you think people don't understand who these "rebuffs" are addressed to? By the way, having sent the text to the editorial office, 2 days later I found a similar question on Alexander Minkin's blog on Ekho Moskvy. Trust me, we didn't talk to him.

Party slogan: "We do not exchange principles for interest!" Fine. But why, after the principled condemnation of Alexei Navalny for "Nazism", "imperialism" and "populism", do party publicists equally fundamentally condemn him for not calling on his "Nazi, imperialist", etc. supporters to vote for Yabloko? Are these principles unbending or percentages?

What is the meaning of your letter - that "Yabloko" creates, and Oreshkin rages? God be with him, with Oreshkin - tell me better, where is the association, on which you have been entrusted to work. He is not. And no response from you either. Instead, a piece of paper on the door: “Quiet! Tov. Schlossberg is in important negotiations. Voters are asked not to disturb." With such approaches, the party runs the risk of failing to gather its nuclear electorate in September.

That's the whole analysis, which you "did not find" in the article. There is no contradiction between my position as the signer of the letter of association in Novaya Gazeta and as the author of the article in The New Times (which you attacked with accusations of duplicity). Both positions are identical: either "Yabloko" overcomes its sectarianism and unites - or unbendingly continues its way downhill.