Domestic notes

We are talking with Evgeny Ivanovich Buchenkov in the room of the departmental sanatorium in Kratov. A year ago, investigators with riot police came to the Moscow apartment of his son, an associate professor of the 3rd Medical Institute and arrested him for participating in a rally on Bolotnaya Square on May 6, 2012. On the same day, the apartment of Evgeny Ivanovich himself was also searched in Nizhny Novgorod. The accusation under Articles 212 and 318 of the Criminal Code threatens his son for a long time. Despite the fact that on May 6, Dmitry was not going to be on Bolotnaya, because he was visiting his parents in Nizhny.

“You are a former special services worker?” Can you tell you something about your career?

• I graduated from Inyaz in Moscow, then counterintelligence courses. He was engaged in operational work - 7 years of intelligence, 14 counterintelligence. For some time he worked in the GDR, where he was a coordinator between the KGB and the special services of the GDR. He had the title of Major MGB GDR. Putin worked in the same position. There were simultaneously 9 coordinators, but we got into different periods, otherwise we would certainly have met.

Then he studied more than once, including at the courses of saboteurs. Therefore, in the 80s he ended up in Afghanistan. These were already purely combat missions - probably, they heard about the Cascade detachment ( KGB special forces , specially created for actions in the conditions of small or partisan wars and working in Afghanistan in 1979-1983. - Ed.).

He quit from organs in the 90s, when there was a global shake, a change of personnel. Then, for two years, he worked in the customs service with the rank of colonel, and was engaged in particularly important matters. Generals are shaking ...

- Your son is considered a dangerous extremist. In those days when you worked in the KGB, there were also people who were considered dangerous for the state, there was a political investigation.

• “Political detective” - then they did not like this phrase, we had a taboo on it. But something like this was-the 5th department, then it became the 5th management, the Z department. All this was then connected by anti-constitutional activity. As for the current concept of "extremism", frankly, I do not understand what it is, although it seems like a person is a stupid. I asked law enforcement officers - investigators, lawyers: what is extremism? No one could answer. Sometimes it comes to the absurdity. Someone wrote in the newspaper: "Our mayor is stealing." Is it extremism?

- But then even then someone wrote what is not customary to say and write. And this was considered anti -constitutional activity.

• Anti -constitutional activity is directed against the foundations of the state and its institutions. Socially dangerous - which prevents ordinary citizens from living normally.

- The mass riots that Dima attribute is also both anti -constitutional and antisocial ...

• See: in the Nizhny he was called to the FSB department, they said to him: you stop your violent activity, it will end poorly. He directly asks: name at least one clause of the law that I violated. They answer him: "If it were, you would have been arrested for a long time. There is a feature through which you can not cross." He replied: "I know that." Everything that he did, both in the Lower and in Moscow, was openly: submitted applications for rallies, received permission, conducted some events, lectures.

“Have you discussed his views on history, state?”

• There were conversations, although he did not particularly spread. He has some kind of idealism in relation to a social structure. I read his work - utopia. Maybe this will become possible in two hundred years. I ask: do you yourself believe that the anarchist movement will be promising? I do not believe, he says.

- Why did he do this then?

• Maybe by inertia. Maybe the internal conviction that something can do something else. Maybe obligations to friends - they looked at him. He, of course, was not the largest leader, but still.

- Is it important to him?

• Certainly. To betray his associates not in his character. But he is not ambitious. For example, when I helped me write a large book "History of Russian Customs", I advised him to show it in graduate school to be credited. Yes, there is no need for me, he says, I have enough of my works.

- Do you think his views, actions carrying danger to society?

• No. He has sharp statements that are contrary to officialdom. But for the thought we have not yet been planted.

Dmitry Buchenkov during the extension of the arrest

- Now many are looking at the "rocking of the boat" as a danger to everyone. We can say that Dmitry also swinged the boat.

• This is his opposition, I don’t know what to call it - systemic, non -systemic - it is open, honest. But uncomfortable. You just have to work with her. But this is not done, I don’t know why. Either there are not enough specialists, or desires. It is easier to conduct a series of arrests like this, someone will leave himself, someone will hide underground. But the opposition will still remain.

- What does it mean to work?

• (After a pause.) Conduct a dialogue.

- It's clear. And I thought - to "work" more skillfully on its neutralization, destruction ...

• Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! Here the technique has been worked out! Yes, these methods are known: introduction, shielding, setups, false organization, etc. And they, of course, are used.

- Watching methodological continuity?

• Yes, there is something of the NKVD methods. For example, I was amazed when I realized that the investigation in the Dima case enters the third circle. This means - the subject is studied, then his connection. The Third Circle is the connection of his connections. I did not think that this technique is used now. The sisters of Dima studied. For what? Simple hard worker, good guy. The only drawback is smoking. Why develop it? He was scared directly: look, carefully, you can lose the work. Sister Dimin was also "developed". At work, she was immediately told - write a statement about leaving, we do not need trouble. She is still very scared, afraid of surveillance, listening. I tell her: "Well, who will bother with you? They followed a couple of weeks, they have time. They have to get a sanction for such a long surveillance! This is a waste of great time, money."

- Who was more dangerous for the state - current opposition or dissidents of the 70s?

• (He gets up and tightly closes the door to the room). The state in the USSR was unique, built in the form of a pyramid. Moreover, the pyramid was inverted. It is believed that on top is a person, then a collective, society and only then the state. We had a state at the top, then a person on a falling society and below. In general, the system was well rebuilt - this is a compliment to our "father of peoples", I worked perfectly. Then there was a transformation of society and the state. Today we have no dictatorship yet, there is authoritarian power.

- Was the authorities in the 70s not authoritarian?

• You could say a little, of course. But there was a collective department, the decisions were collegial. Even the general secretary, although he had weight, he could not make decisions alone. And now Vladimir Vladimirovich built this vertical, and did the right thing, I do not condemn it, because the country is falling apart, otherwise the cracks would have gone through the territory of the state.

But why now to strengthen this vertical is incomprehensible. Governors are all in a fist. The media organs are all saying what is needed. And on the contrary, he strengthens, and it is not clear to me. As a result, now this vertical is much more vertical than in the USSR.

- Crossed with investigators involved in dissidents? Can you compare human, professional qualities?

• Certainly. In the 70-80s, professionalism was higher. And control is stricter. The preliminary investigation was given a month. To extend the arrest and investigation, serious motives were needed. And now people are sitting for six months, a year, no one is interested. SK gave, of course, too much authority, and the prosecutor’s office was cut off.

There were no shoals like today. Such stretches, sewing with white threads - it was punishable. Still, everything was driven under the letter of the law. Here was the 70th article ("Anti-Soviet agitation and propaganda"). If it is proved that it distributed, the motives are unimportant, there is an act - and that’s it ...

- And if it was not possible to prove?

• Let go! But you see, our workers did not like this article, tried to re-qualify to something else. After all, a person can be repaid differently. You can scare, you can plant for parasitism. It was hard to prove anti -Soviet agitation and propaganda, believe me.

Or here is the "espionage". If a person simply found out some secret, then he was licking - this is not a espionage, he did not give a subscription. He must have the form of admission, this should have entered his professional duty - there are many conditions, if at least one is not respected, it was very difficult to prove espionage. And in the political spy, if it was used, then in some fundamental, especially high-profile matters, to annoy the "that side". And so mostly agreed - you are silent, we are silent. Exchanged.

- Articles such as "anti -Soviet propaganda" - were they needed, in your opinion?

• To maintain that state frame, they were needed. And after all, they also need several conditions. If a joke told in the kitchen or at work, this was not considered. There is always intent, public outcry. If he went to Red Square and began to flog some kind of Galica anti -Soviet - then yes. Or in the press. But it was still necessary to prove it.

Demonstration on May 6, 2012. Photo by Evgenia Mikheeva

- Now almost everyone who goes on "ideological" articles is trying to tie Ukraine. And Dmitry too - one of the constant arguments for the detention under arrest is that he visited Kyiv during the events on the Maidan, although this is not included in the accusation.

• I think that today's power was simply really frightened by the repetition of the Kyiv Maidan and therefore arranged such unprecedented landings. As for Dima, it is simply illogical. The fact is that anarchism is essentially always against nationalism in any form, especially against fascism, he cannot adopt experience from his ideological opponents. He even had no contacts there. He said that he met with his comrades, who had nothing to do with this Maidan, the anarchists there are Zatyaka and do not crawl out of the cracks.

- Recently, the case of Sergey Akhmetov was closed, which was like two drops of water like Dimino: he was not at a rally either, and there were photos and witnesses who confirmed that he had been confused with another person.

• I have not heard about this matter. This gives some hope. I feel the investigators are now at a dead end. They are already on boarding, you can’t retreat. Hold a person for a year! In the end, these are state funds, but it turns out that in vain? Forty volumes write, this is necessary to sit, invent - a lot of work!

- And with the investigators leading the work of Dmitry, how did you communicate?

• With Alexei addirin (he already conducted the affairs of Bolotnikov. - Ed.) I spoke directly. But although we spoke one operational language, it seemed that we were from different countries with him. I told him: "I see in the eyes that you do not believe me." “Yes, I don't believe you,” he says. "Do you believe the documents?" (We are talking about the diary of the sister, who made a record of Dmitry’s trip to Nizhny Novgorod on May 6, 2012. - Ed.). "This is a skillful falsification. And we will prove it." I say: “If I wanted to falsify, I would have done so that you are not digging up. Take any fact from this diary, in the same place for a few years of entry, ask who is described there - that’s the whole check. How can you falsify so much?”

- Addin's ideological one? Believes in what he says?

• He is in shurs, looks only forward, does not distinguish shades, there is such a type. He convinces himself all the time, then he tries to convince others. Uranov ( led the case of Ivan Nepomnya. - Ed.) - He is more flexible.

I thought for a long time that all this was a mistake. Then the lawyer Svetlana Sidorkina told me about her conversation with Uranov. She asked him directly whether he believes that that man with Bolotnaya is Dmitry. He just lowered his head and said nothing. I also asked Uranova directly: whose was the landing order? He jumped up: "Well, what are you, we work without orders, we will figure it out."

But when they found the old cartridge once a friend of another, who was once donated to a friend, they just jumped from happiness! "Storage of ammunition"! They wanted to blind the organized crime group - it did not work, to their annoyance.

- So whose order is this, in your opinion?

• This is not necessary specifically on it. Maybe there was just some kind of orientation: in the swamp business, fill out all the cells, and he fell into the last incomplete. Or maybe specifically the Ephesians said - it must be closed, too active.

- Having retired, you have become a writer, write adventure books about bodies of organs, special forces. Are their plots and heroes differ from the real story of your son?

In the recently published book "A shot from the other world" about the customs mafia there are two traces. I wrote off their types from the Dimine investigators. One experienced major, his name is Dubinin. And the second is young, but vulgar, he begins to dig a finished, seemingly, business. It seemed to him that everything was not all right there. And the first he says to him: "What is the main task of the trace? From shit to make candy, but on the contrary you are doing, it ruined the whole thing." I still continue to hope that Dmitry’s obvious innocence will be recognized.