"They are afraid of light, like vampires and cockroaches"

Leonid Gozman, Nikita Petrov, Igor Stepanov summed up the results of the political year

Ex-prosecutor Igor Stepanov in court tries to get the right to answer the chairman of the FSB Bortnikov. Why do the Russians for the mass allow you to do any experiments on themselves? What to consider the main result of the outgoing year? Discuss Leonid Gozman, Nikita Petrov, Igor Stepanov. Presenter Elena Rykovtseva.

Elena Rykovtseva: We will take the results of the year. And the results of one private event, one private struggle will also be summed up. Leonid Gozman, hello. Igor Stepanov, hello. Nikita Petrov, hello. I heard an amateur observer on the Echo of Moscow Radio, who said that if you, Muscovites, did not go to Sokolniki for a rally against the crazy cost of parking lots, you can do anything with you now. You condemned these 380 rubles per hour on sofas, you did not go out to say your "no" with this crazy money, now you are dust under your feet, you will enter the house, you will not object. Do you agree that if you have not left for 380 rubles of parking, you can do anything with you?

Full video version

Leonid Gozman: No, I do not agree. Because it all accumulates, they are recruited, recruited, in the end they will hit, of course. I think that the authorities are completely crazy when he spends such things. I have a counter offer. They say that the city is full of cars, there is nowhere to stand. Okay, we will believe. Then I have an offer: to ban personal drivers, to ban personal cars. Firstly, there will be fewer cars on the streets. Secondly, efficient people will pour into a normal labor process. Thirdly, parking will not be busy. Fourth, those parking lots that they have now allocated for their service transport near the buildings of government will be transferred to public use.

Elena Rykovtseva: Why only personal ones, let's forbid cars at all.

Leonid Gozman: No, cars do not need to be prohibited. Cars that the authorities carry should be prohibited. Why should the Moscow mayor have a plus for its salary a car and maintenance staff? Does he not know how to drive a car himself? Let him go on the subway. The metro, by the way, is not bad, I go to the metro all the time. They create certain difficulties in us, but they do not create them for themselves, they do not suffer from this. This is unfair. Personal cars must be prohibited.

Elena Rykovtseva: They will not ban. What should be the amount of one hour of parking, so that those about whom the Car Ekho Moskvye observer says that their millions were on the sofas and was indignant, no one got up and did not go out to the park to be indignant publicly and publicly, what should be the amount of the hour to leave the sofas?

Igor Stepanov: A very interesting question, on the one hand. On the other hand, you think why this issue is addressed to Muscovites, why should Muscovites go out? I live almost in the center, in principle, I am just satisfied with the fact that such a high price, and the fact that there are few cars. That is, they do not suit just Muscovites, but those who come from the Zagorod to the center of Moscow.

Elena Rykovtseva: From the Zagorod - this is Chertanovo, Biryulyovo. In general, Muscovites who do not live in the center, 8–9 millions.

Igor Stepanov: The question arises: guys, maybe you in Chertanovo? Why are you going here, here is also crowded.

Elena Rykovtseva: So, on the contrary, you are interested in making prices for parking higher and higher. Are you ready to go to another rally that there are few 380 rubles, you need two thousand so that they do not show here at all?

Igor Stepanov: I try not to go to rallies. I am trying to solve issues in legal ways, as you know everything. Therefore, here, probably, you still need to solve something differently. Including, probably, as Leonid Yakovlevich said absolutely correctly, not about increasing the question, but to talk about the elimination of those machines that are not private, on which they hang out in the city. You will approach any prefecture, each prefecture has a huge number of machines. I even wrote a complaint about the prefecture, because I was not allowed to hold a picket just because they were afraid that some problems could happen to me, since there are a lot of cars. The cars there are also private. That is, it is generally not clear how they are located in this territory, which is allocated for official vehicles, to ensure the activities of this prefecture. We do, if, for example, in the Ministry of Justice of Finland there were two cars for all the ministry, then we have hundreds of them, if not thousands. Sorry, each head of the department in the same Investigative Committee, especially the hash differed in this, even the deputy principles of departments, everyone had their own official cars, on which they all traveled.

Elena Rykovtseva: I realized that you are both talking about the border with which people get up from the sofa, translate that there should be fewer cars.

Leonid Gozman: There should be fewer cars, there should be no privileges. When they say that they need a car for official needs, this is a lie. For two or three years I refused the car in the city, I do not drive by car, because it is impossible, traffic jams, some kind of insanity. I can say exactly even in my own experience that it is much faster to drive by public transport. I do not really understand why the Prime Minister of Sweden can go on a bicycle to work, and the mayor of Sobyanin cannot go to work on the subway.

Elena Rykovtseva: Because it is more dangerous. Nevertheless, the problem will not be solved in the way that you are talking about now, officials will not have less cars. Then I will ask Nikita about accumulation, where is that point of bifurcation, after which the protest begins? We will have a plot about the event of the year, which will be said that pension reform caused a number of protests in the country. Now they also said: a number of protests caused a increase in parking prices. We also did not really notice them. Where is this point, what should happen in order to come out and say: we do not want 380 rubles, we want 100.

Nikita Petrov: If you bring the situation to the point of absurdity, then people will certainly be protested massively. But while we are dealing with a phenomenon called atomization of society. That is, everyone fights for himself. Such a line simply says that people are not ripe to be consolidated to declare their rights, consolidated to defend their rights, fight for their rights. Now the question of what to do with parking lots. After all, we can offer really radical methods. What is most outraged in this situation, that this is a typical monopoly. Because no one is advised with anyone, no one is introducing a reasonable price, no one cares about the market nature of this price, and that’s all directively. You can, of course, still increase. Ultimately, if we are talking about this situation at all, then it seems to me that the further the line to push such bureaucratic and selfish interest will continue, the obvious one will sooner or later end with mass protests. But now people are intimidated.

Leonid Gozman: Protest occurs when life deteriorates sharply and many. There were protests on pensions, but not that the whole country got up. The country did not get up. Why? Because the deterioration of life, firstly, is moved away, it will be then and it will be at all at different times. Therefore, they do not come out. They went out in Novocherkassk because life has changed at once. The same thing with parking lots. I may not go today, I can not go tomorrow, I can still get a job. There is no landslide situation that occurs suddenly for everyone.

Elena Rykovtseva: We will now see the story of a person who alone is trying to restore justice.

Leonid Gozman, Nikita Petrov, Igor Stepanov summed up the results of the political year

Embed Share Embed Share The text of the copy

---

Width PX Height PX

---

The url has been copied to your clipboard

No Media Source Currently Available

0:00 0:01:51 0:00

Elena Rykovtseva: Many of this interview were indignant. This interview simply frightened, as far as I remember the reaction, society simply scared: where do we live, in what century, in what year. But you sued the court alone. What are you counting on?

Igor Stepanov: I count on you, on journalists, on the fact that it will still be possible to give a certain publicity to this issue. Honestly, this interview made about the same impression on me as it blew from the grave with a cold. It seems that Bortnikov was preserved for 30 years somewhere, he lay there in the refrigerator, then he took him out, he went out and still did not understand what year, or 1985, or 1986, began to say what was then. I have such an impression. Honestly, I probably did not know that there were so many respected people who then wrote their appeal at the moment when I wrote my own. I wrote it almost immediately, as I read this article, and sent it to the Russian Newspaper with a request or confirm Bortnikov’s words that there really were excesses, or publish a refutation. I did not wait for any answer from them, wrote a second time, did not wait again. He filed a lawsuit in the Soviet court, and only after that the “Russian newspaper” finally gave me an answer that this interview is the personal opinion of a citizen Bortnikov, respectively, we have the right to express my opinion under the Constitution.

Elena Rykovtseva: If it does not insult anyone, of course.

Igor Stepanov: A difficult question. You perfectly understand that this interview was preparing a large number of specialists. There is probably on the back of the papers that Bortnikov read, there is a bunch of approvals, a bunch of performers, departments, heads of departments, and so on. Therefore, it was quite difficult to catch there. I found a very difficult clue on which I managed to contact Bortnikov with claims, but with claims to the newspaper that they would provide me with the opportunity to publish their opinion. Indeed, this is his opinion, reliability or inaccuracy, we are not even affecting now. The essence of the case is that the Plenum of the Supreme Court explained that the citizen receives the right to an answer, to publish an answer even if this article, albeit reliable, but the facts given in it are described in such a way that they create a unilateral perception of the picture. That is why I demanded from the "Russian newspaper" so that I was given the opportunity to write.

Elena Rykovtseva: That is, you are trying to dry your right to publish your response? This is now the essence of the claim, you are not suing Bortnikov about his statements, but with the newspaper that you also want to speak out about what he said. Lord, what should they not publish your opinion, what kind of problem?

Igor Stepanov: The thing is that if they publish my opinion, accordingly they admit that Bortnikov could be wrong. As far as I understand, we have in Russia in recent years the situation is such that power is not surrendered, power is going to the end and the authorities are always right. As always, she is mistaken, always screwed up, slides, falls, get dirty, but will still stay to the last.

Elena Rykovtseva: Now was the court refused the right to answer in the Russian newspaper?

Igor Stepanov: The right to publish this answer is in the Rossiyskaya Gazeta.

Elena Rykovtseva: Have you received a trial failure?

Igor Stepanov: There was a refusal. There is no motivating part yet.

Elena Rykovtseva: What is based on the solution?

Igor Stepanov: I don't know yet. We ourselves are interested.

Elena Rykovtseva: What do you associate with such a story? I don’t even want to appeal to the newspaper, because they are suing, they will say: the court decided that we can add here? Do you think this is because we are talking about the chairman of the FSB?

Leonid Gozman: Obviously completely. Who would be worried about another reason? If it were not Bortnikov, but Pupkin, Stepanov answers him, think, Stepanov and Pupkin quarreled, whom it excites, of course, would publish. The fact that they say that this is a personal opinion of a citizen of the Russian Federation Bortnikov is a hypocrisy. The article is called "FSB sets accents." Not Bortnikov expresses his opinion, but the FSB sets accents.

Elena Rykovtseva: This is the history of the FSB complex, it was he who reported for everything.

Leonid Gozman: He is the reincarnation of Felix Edmundovich Dzerzhinsky today. He does not say in the text that this is his opinion, he speaks on behalf of the Federal Security Service. The newspaper does not say that the opinion may not match. The most interesting thing is what kind of organ it is. This is not some kind of "darkly worker"-this is a "Russian newspaper", an officials of the Government of the Russian Federation. Laws and decisions come into force after publication in this newspaper. All officials of the Russian Federation necessarily read the "Russian newspaper" and watch the emergence of new laws there. What is printed in the "Russian newspaper" is, in fact, the position of the Russian state. All governments have such publications, this is the official official of the government - this is the opinion of the Russian state. Therefore, of course, they do not allow to publish. The newspaper does not want to quarrel with Bortnikov, and Bortnikov does not agree, for sure with some 26th his assistant they discuss this, the 26th assistant said: do you guys foolish how some Stepanov will object to us?

Elena Rykovtseva: Anyone has the right to an opinion, if this opinion does not carry the shade of insult. Once it was a criminally punishable act, now, slander or insult is transferred into an administrative plane, but nevertheless it is a jurisdiction. Do you think that in these words Bortnikov, the memory of the dead, repressed, relatives of the same Igor is offended?

Nikita Petrov: Of course, so. Because in an interview with Bortnikov, an attempt was actually made to build some kind of glorious, consistent history of the state security organs of the Soviet era. At the same time, the facts are unraveling, facts are distorted. In this interview there are many inaccurate facts, or defaults that create a false impression of this story. If we talk about accents, the FSB sets accents, these accents turned out to be completely different than the state line in the field of Soviet history of mass repressions. The state line is the perpetuating of the memory of the victims of political repression, this is the discovery of the wall of sorrow, these are words when opening the wall of sorrow that President Putin said that repression cannot be justified. In an interview with Bortnikov, an attempt to justify repression is made, yes, not so obvious, not a frontal one, but I would say, indirectly creeping. This cannot but outrage. Therefore, in this case, I do not call it slander - this is actually called an unscrupulous presentation of history for certain purposes of glorifying it. In my opinion, this, of course, can not be the opinion of Mr. Bortnikov. But here, when we are talking about responses, they were, there were many of them, I personally also spoke out on this subject. The question is that we generally have lost feedback. The state newspaper is not interested in the opinion of readers - now it is as a mainstream, this has not happened before. In the early 90s, in the late 80s, when the whole story of the discussion of the past, an honest conversation, newspapers always published readers' feedback. Here it is not in Igor Stepanov, at least one other response.

Elena Rykovtseva: Was the forum open under this publication on the Internet?

Nikita Petrov: The forum is in the Internet publication, but we are talking about the newspaper. This is the same as saying: we declared something loudly throughout the country, and you can make your answer in the gateway, there your yard will hear you.

Igor Stepanov: Moreover, they can remove it.

Nikita Petrov: I agree that the Russian newspaper is a state newspaper, it is like the Pravda newspaper before, and such a mix of the newspaper Pravda and Izvestia. Because Izvestia published legislative acts, and the Pravda newspaper gave a political line. This, of course, was outrageous.

Elena Rykovtseva: Given the fact that we are moving on New Year's Eve, what are you seeing the prospects of this case? Do you really go to Strasbourg to make you be given the opportunity to be printed by beanings on paper?

Igor Stepanov: I will definitely turn to Strasbourg, but just to Strasbourg three more instances. I plan a little different except that. The thing is that the 18th article of the Law on the rehabilitation of victims of political repression provides for the possibility of holding persons accountable in these repressions. Unfortunately, those persons who participated in the organization of repression against my relatives have already died, since it was all in the 30s. To bring to justice, most likely, will not work. Even if I submit an application for a criminal case against them, they will naturally refuse me. But the whole point is that you still need to try to somehow raise this issue of responsibility of the participants in political repressions. All those who are now the employees of the FSB, the prosecutor’s office, the judges who participate in the consideration of the “New Greatness”, “Network”, Dmitriev, they must understand that sooner or later they can come to them with the question of whether you were legal. What was legal then may be illegal later. Therefore, I tried to turn to a person who suffered from political repressions relatively recently, or rather, in 1968. I turned to Pavel Mikhailovich Litvinov with a question and a request to appeal to the court in the official order in order to hold law enforcement officers, prosecutors, and the courts that fused the case against him. That is, he was convicted in 1968, rehabilitated in 1991, respectively, he is a victim of political repression. Accordingly, we can try.

Elena Rykovtseva: What did he answer you?

Igor Stepanov: He agreed.

Elena Rykovtseva: Despite the fact that he does not live in Russia. That is, he will remotely submit to the Russian court.

Leonid Gozman: He is such a man that he will also come, if necessary.

Igor Stepanov: He will do it. We just called up with him, he allowed me all this to inform me today.

Nikita Petrov: This, unfortunately, was not done in the early 90s. Then there really were talk about what it was necessary to hold those KGB investigators and those judges who carried out non -legal sentences, and the KGB violated Soviet legality. Nothing was done because society decided - consent, reconciliation.

Elena Rykovtseva: Now, if you have paid attention, society decides that consent and reconciliation must reach the stage that the one that was mocked, planted and executed, then did the same with him, now he will hang on the same board and in the same mass grave, you will walk and give them honor.

Nikita Petrov: No, this is completely different. I believe that when we are talking about the cemetery where people are shot, the law was violated in relation to everyone. Even if one of them was different before that he also violated the law-this does not mean that he does not have the right to ensure that this name is on the common board. This is just a forety of information about who is buried here. This is not glorification as such.

Elena Rykovtseva: This is not glorification, but when you go with flowers, it turns out that you are both the executioner and the victim put these flowers. This is a very controversial question in fact.

Nikita Petrov: If we are talking about places of memorial memory, then, I understand, passions boil, everyone is discussing violently. But still, we need to be distracted from the fact that we know that there are those who are not rehabilitated and rehabilitated on this board, because they are the executioners and violators of the rule of law. But we understand that they also acted lawlessly in relation to them. We must see this from the height of our current time.

Elena Rykovtseva: I hear Bortnikov’s words directly from this interview. He said in his interview that they were also repressed, they were injured, you must understand that they also acted illegally with them.

Nikita Petrov: In an interview with Bortnikov, firstly, the number of affected Chekists is exaggerated. Second: he is simply silent that the leaders of the department were shot and shot for the matter. Thirdly, he completely releases the fact that those whom he accuses of interviewing, say, defendants in large Moscow processes, they are all rehabilitated, and he throws a shadow on them in this interview, he actually opens against those legal decisions that Soviet power, and then the Russian government has already adopted and approved. This revisionism is an interview, and not an attempt to reconcile some with others. An attempt to reconcile some with others is a tool.

Elena Rykovtseva: He is trying to pole the appearance of the enkavedeshnik, tries to make him a saint.

Leonid Gozman: I would like to return to trial. My friends asked me when it became known that Igor had an honor to me, invited me to this process. The question is so completely natural: does he need it in a fig? The guy's forehead against the wall, the court decision is predetermined, the hedgehog is clear. It seems to me that what Igor does is very important for two reasons. Firstly, he told the Russian Newspaper: we will not publish anything. What should a law -abiding Russian citizen do? He must be lost and crawled, as it should be on the rank. And he was not wiped. This is generally an example - this is how you need to behave, do not wipe yourself. The second, why is it very important. The case is transferred. He suffered a discussion of repression, all this disgrace from the site of the rally, kitchen, scientific conference, party and so on to the state court. The rules apply in court. They pass this sentence what they want, and the procedure itself is generally more or less performed. And Nikita performed, and I spoke, Igor spoke, everything is fine. This is important because all these guys are most afraid of light, like vampires, like cockroaches. They are wildly afraid of the trial of anyone. Therefore, I am sure that in the motivation part something will not be written about repression, but about the fact that Igor is not in business. They are really afraid to discuss repressions. They are even ready to allow the law to violate. I had experience when they adopted a stupid law to counteract the propaganda of Nazism, where it is impossible to compare the Nazi troops with the Stalinist, all these joys, the next day after the law entered into force, published in two editions of Russian identical text, where the same things that they forbade to speak were allocated. I printed it, it was not very simple, but there were people who decided. And then I wrote: guys, I am looking forward to meeting in court, the ball is on your side - here it is a publicly committed crime. Nothing happened. That is, they thought somewhere behind the wall and decided that they would have more hemorrhoids from this business. You can imagine an open court about whether you can compare Stalin with Hitler or not. This is a charm, it’s not a pity to sit down for this.

Nikita Petrov: In fact, they will judge some teacher or blogger, but it is hidden somewhere there.

Elena Rykovtseva: I propose to see the plot that my colleague Elena Polyakovskaya prepared, what the political results of the year she saw.

Elena Rykovtseva: And we will immediately see our survey. What results of the year do Moscow passers -by see.

Survey of passers -by in Moscow

Elena Rykovtseva: Very interesting. Especially about the war is interesting, he says: thank God that there was no war. I’m already starting to worry so that he does not jinx, because the number of predictions on federal channels, that Ukraine is about to attack the Donbass in some particularly terrible form, it goes off scale ...

Leonid Gozman: Firstly, I think, objectively, the probability of a big war became higher, the war is closer, there were already several cases when it could begin. For example, when the Americans bombed the airfield in Syria, and our smart generals said: we will knock down, we will amaze where it flew out of. Thank God this did not happen. The war became possible psychologically. “If only there was no war” - in fact, the suffered slogan, he did not accidentally undertake. Indeed, the war that was, it was so terrible, passed through all in the country that it became a really internal sensation. But I would not single out a specific event as a result of the year.

Elena Rykovtseva: I really worry when the federal channels say that Kiev is about to hit and start a new war in the Donbass. What does this mean, what should we really be afraid of?

Leonid Gozman: This means - we must be afraid of our aggression. Because I am neither a supporter or enemy of President Poroshenko, not my president, but it is obvious that he is not an idiot, a smart person. As a smart person, he perfectly understands that he cannot solve the problem of Donbass by military means. He will not be able to move the Ukrainian troops there, they will not let him do this, after all, the Russian army is stronger.

Nikita Petrov: How does the Russian army have the right to intervene in the affairs of another state? Then another conversation, then we need to talk about as aggressors. It turns out that the people actually pronounce this phrase as a mantra, and the war is coming, it goes through the fault of our state.

Leonid Gozman: Naturally, our state is an aggressor.

Elena Rykovtseva: The people mean, if only there was no the war in which we will suffer.

Nikita Petrov: That is, if we fight against someone, this is normal, and when someone answers it, this is called "we were attacked."

Leonid Gozman: It seems to me that the result of the year, if you look at what happened, you started from a car topic, it seems to me that the engine of our state and our country switched to a neutral, and turned on a neutral speed. He buzzes, consumes energy, spoils the ecology, but nothing happens. The presidential press conference was held. What did he talk about? What questions do you answer, what questions do you ask you? The first question was, I’m not even about this idiocy, like if you come to us skiing, this question is worried, I understand, and the question is: a year has passed under the sign of national projects. Catch a person on the street who knows what national projects are. There are no such people. He answers something, they have some kind of his own life, which is not connected with our life at all. Moreover, they even stopped engaged in PR seriously, they did not give a damn about everything. But citizens also do not expect anything. Moreover, they are not afraid of her.

Elena Rykovtseva: This is a controversial judgment. Nikita just at the beginning of our program said that they did not go out even when it would be, because they are still afraid, they are afraid of this power. She did a lot to be afraid.

Nikita Petrov: The authorities included repressive methods, the government included not only intimidation and not only fingering on TV. I would allocate pension reform as a very clear sign - now everything is possible. You do not affect anything, you will endure everything that we will come up with in the Kremlin. Parking here is the same cherries on the cake, when everything is already done so that feedback is not even important.

Elena Rykovtseva: With fear, all this is explained.

Leonid Gozman: Not only fear. A rally in Sokolniki against parking was permitted, people did not go there. They didn’t go because they do not believe that it will have some kind of meaning. That is, many already understand that the appeal to the authorities and personally to our sun for protection is absolutely pointless, it is to spit, to spit them all, they live their own lives. These people just begin to understand. But the consequence of this will be when they say that an explosion, collapse, a revolution is impossible, because where those people and so on are complete nonsense, it is important how many people are ready to protect power. If no one is ready, a small group can do anything.

Nikita Petrov: By the way, interestingly, officials have long developed a peculiar vocabulary. When it comes to some discussions, you always hear: we heard you. It is always very funny, because I had no doubt that they were not deaf. But did they understand me, did they come to them?

Leonid Gozman: They understood you and put you on you.

Elena Rykovtseva: I imagined how the authorities organize my protection: at universities, in kindergartens, schools begin by ordering - go out to protect the authorities. Bring with buses.

Leonid Gozman: So they bring the unfortunate people who are worth it to rallies.

Elena Rykovtseva: The word Nikita Petrov.

Nikita Petrov: I believe that the most high -profile political matter in the past year is the Skripals business. The Russian special services, of course, did not know this shame for many years. This is still not even the case of those dozen illegal immigrants that were exposed in the United States in 2010. This is a failure, from which, of course, it is impossible to get out. This is an absolutely shameful business that the Midovites are already caused by professional liar, but here you need to dodge at all, because they stand between our state, its leadership, between the Kremlin and other countries. They get out, lie, they say: but we were not presented evidence. It is so funny when everything was represented when it is clear that two citizens of Russia, and, according to fake documents, traveled these fake documents to them in Russia. There is nothing to say here, so now the deaf silence and desire to forget faster. But in fact, everyone will not forget, because it really was the fact of a chemical attack against the European state and this attack was conducted by two citizens of the Russian Federation under other people's names. What to do with it? Everyone is silent.

Leonid Gozman: Not all. Since this is the New Year, I can tell a funny story how they defended. I was on the same program on the federal channel, where he said that judging by how they behave, how they pierce themselves, they don’t even read detectives, completely dense, they got down from palm trees. It is clear that it is necessary to fight back to this, you can’t such an enemy sortie. When there was a break for advertising, they have the whole team there, apparently, I thought and after the advertisement the host says: here some allow themselves, and now we will answer. Here is our answer-and Stirlitz appears on the screen, so beautiful, in a white shirt and thoughtfully burns some kind of piece of paper so that Müller does not know what he was thinking about. And then they say: here is our intelligence. That is, they went crazy at all, they do not understand the difference between their own lies and reality. For them, that in the cinema they show what really.

Elena Rykovtseva: You know that for the fact that the GRU was guilty, they were also evicted from the first channels with their concert dedicated to some anniversary to the Star. On this channel, I watched this concert dedicated to the GRU, and was also amazed that all the songs from there, from these films. They sit, with tears in our eyes, they listen to how well we scouted in the film "Shield and Sword", "17 Moments of Spring." They look at themselves and think: what are we great. At least then at least something was good for them.

Nikita Petrov: By the way, returning to our topic, if Bortnikov did not put accents, but simply retold a number of popular films about the work of Soviet intelligence officers and Chekists, how would the public perceive such a publication?

Elena Rykovtseva: Yuri Bogomolov does not like Stirlitz so much and in general this film "17 Moments of Spring", he would certainly sue. True, he once worked there, maybe this is not corporate. But he would definitely complain about them in some form, maybe he wrote a column.

Nikita Petrov: Everyone would laugh and said: we live a literary reality, invented, fake, but we do not want to watch our real present and the past at all.

Leonid Gozman: This is evidence. They refuted my slanderous statement, showing a Stirlitz on the screen.

Nikita Petrov: You could say then: what did you not send Stirlitz for such a responsible task?

Leonid Gozman: I said some kind of muck, of course.

Elena Rykovtseva: There is such a mystery for children. A smart general, a stupid general, Baba Yaga and Koschey Immortal are traveling in the compartment. Between them is a glass of vodka. The train stops into the tunnel, a glass of vodka is empty. Question: who drank vodka?

Nikita Petrov: A good question.

Elena Rykovtseva: Of course, a stupid general, because the rest of the mythological characters. Igor Stepanov has not yet addressed the New Year's greeting to the Russian people. Please, your wishes to the Russians.

Igor Stepanov: My wish, let me, because I still defended the dissertation candidate for the election, so I will afford the topic of the election. For some reason, I have some problems with this authority constantly arise. I'm sitting, I don’t touch anyone, I write a dissertation. Bortnikov once - published his interview. Again, I continue the work, I don’t touch anyone, here Putin comes out and holds a rally concert in Luzhniki. The thing is that in my dissertation it is precisely what was written about this, because at one time there was a fairly famous character, maybe he is now remembered, such Sergey Zuev, he was the owner of the "three whales", with whom Putin fought and only he was the only one could control him.

Elena Rykovtseva: Do you celebrate this as Putin's positive act?

Igor Stepanov: It is unlikely that this can be considered positive. Putin with Trump is okay. Zuev at one time elected to the deputies of the Moscow Regional Duma, he was elected, he just conducted such a rally concert during his elections. The election results were canceled on the basis that the rally-concert is a bribery of voters.

Elena Rykovtseva: Class!

Igor Stepanov: The decision of the Supreme Court.

Elena Rykovtseva: What is the impress of a rally of a rally?

Igor Stepanov: This cannot be provided. Any service provided by the voter during the period of elected technologies by the candidate is a bribery.

Elena Rykovtseva: Please now taxure the Russians.

Igor Stepanov: This year they told me that the process would not take place. Dear Russians and expensive radio freedom, next year I will have a court regarding the initiation of a criminal case against Putin's candidate. Hamovnican court, come. Freedom from radio, I hope there will be help.

Elena Rykovtseva: We received an invitation, Russians too. One New Year address is suing the other New Year's addressing.