"What will be done to me later - I don't care." Sokurov about a quarrel with Putin

On December 9, the next meeting of the Council for the Development of Civil Society and Human Rights (HRC) with the President of Russia was held, during which there was a conflict between Vladimir Putin and director Alexander Sokurov, who spoke in his speech that "Russia must be changed." The President, commenting on this performance, advised the director to "think" before speaking and was generally clearly annoyed. Alexander Sokurov told the correspondent of North. Real about his vision of the conflict with Putin.

In his report, as part of a meeting of the HRC with Putin, Alexander Sokurov touched many topics, stood up for the historian Yuri Dmitriev, who was sitting under the house arrest of the former St. Petersburg deputy Maxim Reznik, for the Akhmed Barakhoev, Sautiev and other Ingush activists, urged not to drive throughout the country. Opposition youth, ”and to think about how to improve life in the regions of Russia, suggested that they let them go to the will of those republics of the North Caucasus that do not want to live with Russia, called for redistribution to budget subsidies from Belarus, Abkhazia, Syria and the southern regions of the country, which are“ for contentment ”, in favor of the extinctioning Russian north, finally, to save the old village Puddles, in which the indigenous people lives the indigenous people and who want to destroy in the interests of the gas processing complex.

Putin reacted sharply, accusing Sokurov of unprofessionalism, of rash speeches, that he, speaking of the reluctance of some republics to remain in Russia, wants "a repetition of Yugoslavia in our territory." Putin repeated several times that even Sokurov is not permissible to say that someone is in Russia, that such conversations are “dangerous toys” and that it was impossible to make such considerations into public space.

Putin’s spokesman Dmitry Peskov commented on the dialogue of the director and president, saying that Sokurov had touched many important topics “unprofessional and without knowledge of the subject”, and this is “something that the president does not tolerate”. The head of Chechnya, Ramzan Kadyrov, has already urged to check Sokurov’s words for anti -stateism and extremism.

- Alexander Nikolaevich, what can you say about Kadyrov’s frankly rude attack to you? Many even saw direct threats in his speech.

- I do not want to say a word about this person, too much honor - I can talk about him. Let what he said, comments on the president of the country. Let the presidential administration commented, this is its business.

- And how do you generally evaluate your performance at the meeting of the HRC with Putin and his reaction to your words?

Maybe it’s really impossible with the head of the country, I don't know

- I am very upset that my interlocutor did not delve into what I said. I do not blame him, of course, he was completely not ready for my text. After all, usually he is brought by the texts of the speeches of the Council members, and I, of course, never give my texts in advance, and it was very difficult for him to navigate. It was a shaft of new information, suggestions - I think he simply is not ready for such a manner of work. So they blame me for allowing myself to be such as familiar behavior, changing topics, angles and formulating in the industrial, undividicularly. Maybe the truth is not so with the head of the country, I do not know. But I am not a diplomat and not a politician, and I am simply not able to track all these nuances and control myself in such important issues for my country. This caused irritation and anger. I regret it, it should not be. We are interlocutors, and the council was created to exchange various opinions, sometimes completely non -coincided. I thought that I would at least partially be heard, but it turned out that my performance was a big mistake, and I think it would be fair if I was now withdrawn from the HRC. Judging by the reaction of the presidential spokesman, I understand that they are very outraged. Well, what to do - you need to recruit diplomats, politicians, people more adapted to such procedures in the HRC. It can be seen that all members of the Council behave differently. Probably, to do the way I cannot and is not accepted. But what to do now - it happened.

“ But we saw a lot - we saw Putin’s irritation, which resulted in you - especially, by the way, when you talked about the North Caucasus.” Why do you think?

- Because, as I have long said, this is the biggest problem of the federation: neither the national issue, nor the issue of economic and cultural development is resolved there. I have no contacts with my peers from there, and high -ranking leaders in the Caucasus refuse to speak with me. I am dealing only with young people, peers of my students, they are absolutely frank with me, and what they will not say in their circle, their parents, they calmly tell me, apparently, humanly trusting me. And I believe that if the Russian Federation does not pay attention to the historical, ideological, economic aspects of life in the Caucasus, then the emergence of a new major conflict there is inevitable. Because a new generation comes to life, which has neither culture, nor education, nor education, which was sometimes given by the Soviet school or the Soviet Institute, and they will behave differently, and the Islamic factor is becoming increasingly important. The arrival of Islam in the same Kabardino-Balkaria, where I was on the set of this summer, causes alertness and anxiety both among the Kabardins and the Balkars-at least those whom I know. In 2007, I said that for me it is obvious to the complication of relations with Ukraine and Kazakhstan, then, of course, no one paid attention to this. And now I say that what is happening in the North Caucasus for the sum of various reasons cannot be indifferently perceived by those who think about the fate of the country, the fate of the Federation - if we need one. In my speech, I spoke all the time about federalism, the role of a cultural, national context.

- But it was this, it seems, that caused a particularly negative reaction.

Of course, such a manner of conversation was offended for me - they have not talked to me for a long time, no one

- My interlocutor, unfortunately, did not pay attention to it at all. However, I know and hear from different angles that no federation is gone. A few years ago, at a meeting with Medvedev, I touched on different issues, including a federal device, he told me: what are you, Alexander Nikolaevich, what a federation. Of course, I was surprised - maybe they know more about whether we have a federation or not. But I live in a country where there is a constitution of a federal state, the basis of which is a national division, invented 100 years ago. And I drew attention to the fact that this document is 100 years old, what we need to think about the future, that this cannot continue. And in response, I heard remarks, of course, surprising me - that I call for the collapse of the country, that it was almost a riot, I don’t remember everything. The conditions of the conversation were technically difficult - I sat in Smolny in a special room, and where the president was, I don’t know, the connection was with a margin in time: I start to say - he did not finish, he finished - I start to say, he begins to object, give sharp reins. I did not particularly participate in this discussion, since it turned into some kind of tangle of nonsense, which humiliated the head of state rather than me. Of course, such a manner of conversation was offended for me - they haven’t talked to me for a long time, no one. Apparently, something happened to a person, maybe he was terribly tired after a working day, maybe after the negotiations with the Americans on the eve of the on the eve of, I don’t know. But it was clear that irritation flared up immediately - he said that I had a whole program, a whole manifesto. At first I thought - how good, I, a simple person, not politics, turned out a whole manifesto. But it turned out that the manifesto from the lips of a member of the Human Rights Council is bad, it should not be so. If this offended the head of state, I apologize - however, I do not understand what I could offend him so.

- And why do you think he called your speech several times unprofessional?

- It is such - I am not a politician, not a journalist, not a publicist, I am a craftsman, I am a certain art worker, and I will organize my speech on the principle of dramatic comparisons: speaking of social tension that constrains a person’s life and his rights, I give an example a trade union movement strangled in our country - and he does not even know what it is about. I said that we do not have a step-by-step development of catastrophic situations in the country, that we need to organize civil defense, since the Ministry of Emergencies does not cope with this, and no one in the cities knows what to do in the case of a fan of the electricity at 20-30-degree frost, that in the northwest of the country, in Siberia and in the Urals it is necessary to stop building multi-story houses, which are not clear in the case Disasters, and where they already exist, it is necessary to build special points of heating and power for people who have fallen into trouble. If there is flooding-what to do with people living in these huge towers, how to lower mothers with children or elderly people from the upper floors-does anyone think about it or not?

- Maybe Putin was simply indignant that this was not your business to think about such things?

I wanted to say, but did not have time: why don't you think about it?

- Yes, he was indignant - with what on earth I suddenly took care of this. I wanted to say, but did not have time: why don't you think about it? After all, a wave of climate change can go in any month, from the next spring, and you all run around the country for youth, put them in prisons. How can you collect the spirit and will of the population if there is such an aggravated political life in the country? I am surprised why this question caused such a rack and such anger in the head of state.

“ Maybe you stepped on some nerve?”

- Yes, I don't know what I had stepped on. I am a citizen of the Russian Federation, I have one passport and one nationality, Russia is the most important for me, and I am already at the age when you begin to feel the responsibility for life in this country. If I stepped on someone's pain points-but how else, what is the civil society and a citizen for this, if not for this? Yes, I spoke sharply, yes, I interrupted it. Lord, forgive me for this, but I and people like me - and there are many such people in the country - there is no other way, except to break through and like this, to gather all the many complex problems, and the national, and the problems of war and the world, and the terrifying situation in Ingushetia, since it is not constitutional in nature. And I believed that it was important for the president of my country to listen to everything that her citizen thinks and says. Apparently, I am a naive person, despite my age. And he knows very well that nothing else should be expected from me. After all, I personally do not need anything from him. I only need to have some survival in my homeland. And so that young people who, thank God, still surround me, have a prospect of self -realization in the country so that they would not run away from here. As they understand me and what they will do to me later - I don't care. When you cross a certain age, it is no matter how you will punish you, conscience is more important. And mistakes - well, I do them every other time. But I know that none of the HRCs said what I said, and no one supported me, no one entered into dialogue with the head of state, everyone was silent, some sat with their heads.

- And it was possible, is it not everyone individually included a microphone?

Well, execute me, do anything with me, well, there is such a person in the country. And I'm sure I'm not the only one

-No, if they gave some signs from the places, I think that it would be possible. But at the very beginning, I said that the existence of the Council is the very idea itself, but it is so sorely, it is so compressed that the advice on managing its own country cannot provide any real help. The Human Rights Council is the most painful point now in the public management of the country, and the meeting is not enough only once a year. I built my performance as clearly as I can do it with my experience and at my age. If this caused such anger at all leading levels, well, execute me, do anything with me, well, there is such a person in the country. And I'm sure I'm not the only one.

- Here you said: "We have, in our regiment and Belarus, South Ossetia, Abkhazia ... We must help Syria ..." But with similar slogans - "stop feeding ..." - some went to rallies when they were still possible, that is, many apparently agree with you ...

- I allowed myself to say “on contentment in our regiment” - as the president says, as many people, former retired military or military, my friends, whom I listen carefully, say. This is an understandable and simple language for most men. Yes, on allowance. How? Why is it offensive - I don't know. This, on the contrary, tells the president that we understand that we are in the same group of interests. Why this should be understood in this way - this should be asked by Vladimir Vladimirovich.

- Are you sure that we are in the same group of interests?

There were much more complex and sharp conversations with Boris Nikolayevich, including the war with Chechnya, but there was nothing like that!

- I'm talking about state positioning. The state believes that we are in the same group of interests - Russia, Belarus, Syria, if necessary, since we took such part in them, the southern regions and other regions of the country that are satisfied with the federal budget. This must be very tired and very annoyed towards me in order to perceive what was said. If you read the text literally, then you will see that this is just an open human language. But I am not a diplomat, and I know that, and Putin knows that I am not a diplomat. And with Yeltsin I had a lot of difficult difficult conversations, but there was never a reaction so serious, I do not want to say, painful, but so neurotic, never was! And with Boris Nikolayevich there were much more complex and sharp conversations, including the war with Chechnya, but there was nothing like that! I was spoiled by relations with Yeltsin, his confidence in me, patience and by the fact that he listened to me, did not always agree, of course, thank God, because I did not always be right. But I cannot delete my relationship with Yeltsin from my life, to whom I have deep respect. That's what I am studying on. My people who surround me teach me, and my young colleagues, and my senior comrades, and politicians who listened to me, and I listened to them. Here is my path. I did not grab the stars from the sky, I just looked and studied with Russian life, of which I was a contemporary, and the historical life of Russia, since I am still a historian according to first education.

- You have been talking with Putin for many years, with the ruler, bearing in mind that the interests of Russia are important to him. Are you sure that they are important to him?

-I can only say that we probably see the interests of the country differently. He has the interests of the state, and I have the interests of the people and society. I express the interests of not the population, but my people and city communities, national, confessional interests. I do not express, of course, the interests of the state, for this we need another competence. Information that the president has, unfortunately, is not at all the one that citizens have, even such as members of the Human Rights Council. I think that the president protects the interests of the state, and the interests of my people are more understandable and closer to me - that’s all, and the interests of the state are the interests of politics, and the interests of politics are very crafty. At one point, the politics is one, in the other - completely different. The president himself indicated to us how secret the situation was surrounded in the Crimea, and then he himself gave a detailed interview to some television channel, where he told in detail how everything happened. This means that at a separate moment there was such an attitude to this situation, and at another moment everything changed sharply - everything can be opened, everything can be said. I don't know how!

- We know the period of our history when we contained communist parties around the world, and, excuse ourselves, there was nothing to eat - is it not possible that the mythical interests of the state, the flight of its pride conflict with the interests of the people?

There is no world in international, military relations

- I must tell you that in 50 cases out of 100 interests of the state conflict with the interests of the people. The interests of the people, for example, do not fight. Although sometimes, it seems to me, people in Russia want to fight a little, I hope I am wrong. And the state is necessary for some reason. This is very clear. Did the US population, US youth needed a Vietnamese war? What huge demonstrations of protest against her were. And the United States to approve its dominant position in a certain part of the globe, from the point of view of the economy and global policy, this war was needed. A large country has a large difficult policy, very burdensome for the people. People are often not able to accept the severity of this share of a huge country, which are the states or we. Another thing is that the state does not explain well, it sometimes behaves very ambiguously and slyly in relation to its population, or does not say something, or something does not report on time, or some underground motivations arise. This gap of interests is not the population, but the people and the state are almost a natural phenomenon. But for this, there are democratic constructions that at a certain moment may require the head of state or declassify state bodies, to reveal - why it happens one way or another. So you can’t simplify these things either. Unfortunately, there is no world anywhere now - neither in domestic culture, nor in the domestic policy of Russia. There is no world between Europe and Russia in the cultural field, see what is happening at international festivals. There is no world in international, military relations. Try to talk with the Baltic States and Scandinavians, with the Poles that you need to organize a chain of neutral states, which I constantly talk about with them. Create these neutral states, and you will see how the situation in the world will decisively change, at least in Europe. So everything rested! Everyone rested!

“ Do you think they are just afraid?”

- Okay, but is the emergence of a global nuclear war not scary? Stop being afraid, show this wise example. If two families live on one landing, and conflicts constantly go, then without defiantly good behavior of at least one of the apartments, the world cannot be established. My judgment is based on intuition.

- You said that you do not have the information that the president has - what do you think, and he has the information that you possess, other members of the HRC, people in the field, or do he bring in red or yellow daddy only those information that he might like? Maybe the reason for his irritation is that he was taken and showed the truth?

I sometimes see that he says the word in the word the same as my opposition compatriots

- I can't judge this. Many times I witnessed the fact that he is a competent person and well knows the situation in the country, and his critical attitude towards some situations in the country is no less tough than that of the opposition. I sometimes see that he says word in word the same as my opposition -minded compatriots. And he has the opportunity to correct this, and the opposition has no such opportunity, of course,. And I know why this is not done - although only the head of state himself can answer this question. But you can’t say that he does not know what is happening in the country, he knows very well.

“ But then it’s even worse if he knows about torture, about the unfair court of the Ingush, which you spoke about in your speech, and about much more - and does nothing.” Why?

- This suggests that there is a politician - a cruel, crafty and hidden business. This suggests that if he knows about the ordeals that take place in prisons with people, about terrible mockery of them and does not take any punitive measures, which means that this has political motivation. After all, right during a meeting of the Council, we learned that Vladimir Vladimirovich issued an order to award the next general rank to the head of the Irkutsk Gufsin from the same Irkutsk colony, where they were so terribly mocking people. And this person literally on the eve of our meeting receives a document on beautiful paper about raising to the general title. So they call from Irkutsk-these guys drink in joy: finally, the president understood them, and no one will be punished. Some of the council members had to ask the president about this document. I had other tasks, I thought that this question would ask a person who acted on this topic - but he did not ask him, did not dare. The meaning of what is happening to me is not entirely clear, maybe it all depends on the personal qualities of a person: or the president really does not know what happened in the Irkutsk colony, but for some reason we know. Why they awarded this prison chief - of course, the parliament should ask this issue and the Federation Council to the president of the country.

- Our parliament and our Federation Council?

I can't treat this with irony

- I say so because I begin from the interests of my country and from the text of the Constitution, because only in this text the whole culture of observing human rights converges, only this document connects the practice of the state and the life of people. I constantly said in my speech - there is a violation, there is a violation, and in the Ingush case a violation of not only moral, but also constitutional norms. I cannot relate to this with irony, as journalists relate - otherwise from the knowledge that you possess, I will just go crazy as a citizen. I can talk with the state of my country, relying on the constitutional foundations that still exist. Therefore, I said at the end that if we think about the future, we need a fundamental renewal of the country, including structural state construction, and everyone who is tired of the union with the Russians must be given freedom. And this, by the way, is spelled out in the Constitution of the country, and the president noted this, but immediately said that I was calling for the Yugoslav version, to the destruction of the country. This is wrong, if not tougher, understanding the words of the interlocutor.

- You always reminded of the Constitution ...

- The thought of the constitution was throughout me. This, of course, was a political performance, which are always afraid of the members of the HRC. And I am very sorry that there is no political thought in the Council, that they are not engaged in some academicians of law, but a simple director who swung at this. I am now explaining this to you, as far as possible. Many called me, but I did not consider it possible to explain to someone else my position as I explain it to you now. I come out of the interests of my country. My country is in a difficult situation, and I said that in everything that I observe, I see a serious constitutional crisis in the country, that is, a crisis of basics. Isn't this a professionally formulated thought? And then I proved what I see this crisis in. And why a person with a legal education, so competent and so experienced as the president of the country, refused to understand this, well, ... the ways of the Lord are notons, which is called.

- But does he not do everything in recent years to break these foundations and leave only his power? And then you get up and say: how so ...

He has another, different from my representation, how to create a system of control of the country

- No, no, no. I am sure that this is not so. This person has his own idea of the firmness of the situation in the country, about how to hold the country within the framework of some kind of development or existence. Because every day he deals with such rebels and idiots as I, or with frank speculators and bastards, and he is all the time forced to maneuver in this terrible, nightmare forest and calculate who is telling the truth, who comes from his personal interests, real or future. It’s not in vain that I said, how I imagine what was happening in the offices of investigators and that phones are burning there, a continuous, and absolutely absurd behavior, illogical, people who are unhappy all from beginning to end in this lies, confusion, in this death from a political extension. I said that too. Of course, how? What could I say otherwise? Because I myself was under investigation, I myself, as I understand it, are still in the development of the FSB. I understand all this perfectly. He has another idea that is different from my idea of how to create a system of control of the country. But I can only proceed from my intuition and my performance.

- It seems that he has very terrible ideas that the country can be kept by the oprichnina.

- Maybe I don't know. As you understand, I don’t lead the intimate conversations with him, I don’t know much and, probably, I don’t understand much. Maybe he has such an idea, or maybe something else. Or maybe he will take and once tell me or someone, how difficult it is for him to maneuver between the oligarchs, all sorts of scammers, deceivers, liars and a handful of honest and decent people, how difficult it is to even calculate the decent person in the huge circle of people who surround him. Maybe he will tell it, and we will understand and believe. But he never tells this and never talks about the struggle within public administration. We do not know this. It acts on the basis of his representation and such a national character that exists in the country. It acts therefore so that the people, or rather, are not a people, but the population accepts such a way of action, such a policy. Population. Not a people - the people object.

“ Will he still think about your words?” After all, he cannot but know that you told him the truth.

No one will say: "Vladimir Vladimirovich, read the text of this citizen again." That's all. And it grieves me

“I am nobody and nothing.” He will think about the words of those people who are close to him by age, in life experience, which are tested in some special way. I am grateful to him for the help of creating Faust and so on, and I could, like some, crawl in his knees, but I cannot afford it, because I have great interests than my personal ones. Judging by the annoyed and humble comments that his spokeswoman now gives, I think that there is irritation, on the contrary, is growing. He will not require the text of this speech and will not begin to carefully read it. I think not. Yes, and there is no one to tell him there: Vladimir Vladimirovich, you know Sokurov, you have a whole folder there for sure the denunciations of him, you recently prevented him from arrest and, probably, the destruction of the fund. He stopped this all that. No one will say: "Vladimir Vladimirovich, read the text of this citizen again." That's all. And it upsets me.

-But he still said at the end, seemingly softening that "it would be good for us to talk in private again, which we have not done for a long time." Will you use this proposal somehow?

- Well, he is not the first time he talks about it. This is such a New Year's joke. If these meetings that he talks about took place as often as he speaks, then, I assure you, many topics would not have risen in my speech. Because I am sure that I would be able to convince him not to do what the head of the country or the relevant services sometimes acts. I am sure I would not get up from the chair until I convinced him that this decision was erroneous. So it was with Yeltsin, and it was the most severe disputes in the Chechen war. I convinced Yeltsin that it was necessary to stop this war, to give Chechnya everything that it wishes, the entire possible degree of power, put the troops along the borders, stop this war, and even if the Chechen people and all-all realize their dream of independence. Because the war in Chechnya was the war for independence. Or rebellion. And I also asked Vladimir Vladimirovich the question: "How will you answer the question of the Chechen wars? Is this a war for independence or rebellion?" If the rebellion, then there should have been the indemnity and repayment of all expenses of the Federation that she suffered during the war. And if this is a national liberation movement, it was necessary to conduct a referendum - separately with youth, separately with different segments of the population, with international observers, and it was just necessary to arrange a breakup. Putin said about the possibility of withdrawing from Russia when he gave his sharp removal to me that there was such a procedure, they say, why talk now. And when? When, if not now? Because my intuition cannot deceive me, I am too middle -aged. Now is the time to solve the most serious issues. We can talk calmly on this topic now. We can ask a question to the Caucasian republics why there is no industrial development, the development of public institutions, and culture. And youth in these conditions is extremely difficult. Where is the development? I see that now in the Caucasus they calmed down, neither letters, nothing, do not reach me. Even from Ingushetia there was no reaction to the fact that I risked so, acting so abruptly and specifically. Even there, my friends fell silent, even scared there. My question is: where is the development? This is a question to the federal center, but no less to regional republican leaders: where is the development? That's all.

- Do we have the development of institutions in Russia?

We need to wait until these guys run to Zelenki, take weapons while Islamic states are created there, and this will be an implacable war?

- And now I'm talking about the Caucasus. If they are still in the development of existence within the federation, then they should raise the question of other federal relationships, of confederate relationships, and perhaps about the formation of independent states. And I just said that most young people represent the future outside of one state with Russia. We need to wait until these guys run to Zelenki, take weapons while Islamic states are created there, and this will be an implacable war? Do we need to wait again? This is what is about. And I told him that we have the president of the Federation, and we do not have the President of Russia. And that our northern provinces and regions are in undeveloped state. And once again I said to Putin: there is a duty from St. Petersburg, Leningrad to Arkhangelsk, thousands of people were transferred to the Arkhangelsk province on the eve of the blockade, where people died during the war, suffered no less than in Leningrad, because it was even harder to live there. And we are now creating opportunities for enriching some corporate unions in the Caucasus, where huge stadiums are being built, a huge number of very rich people, and in the Arkhangelsk region, as they say, they suck a finger. No extra stadium can be built, not a single extra road cannot be built. In winter, entire villages are cut off from the district at least more or less such large cities, because everything is entered because there is no fuel in order to clear the roads. The number of hospitals that obscure medical institutions was reduced. Here they need to help. It is necessary to redistribute the budget and the removal of part of the trenches, which are sent to the more favorable areas of the country, the southern regions, in favor of the northern regions. That's all. There is no particular secret and no special wisdom in what I said. Why all these fairly systematic perennial thoughts cause such anger and such rejection ...

- Perhaps because they consider Russia exclusively as a donor for their wallets, pockets?

The future of our state is unpredictable

- Maybe, maybe. This conclusion suggests itself. Capitalism has one goal - the accumulation of funds in the hands of certain people who are able to do this. We call Russia a social state, but it, of course, is not fully social state, but only to a small extent. Because there is another economic motivation, fixed assets, basic profits, of course, are in the hands of a limited number of people. This is not Swedish socialism, it is Russian bureaucratic capitalism, as many say. And what is there to be surprised? So it is. If you look seriously, I regret that the fate of young people, my compatriots - young people, including my students, fell into this era. This is again a transitional stage. We do not know what formation in Russia this will result in a gangster form, in a religious form. Maybe it will be some terrible Orthodox, tough state, with some Orthodox rubles, I do not know what else. We do not know, unfortunately. Because, in fact, the future of our state is unpredictable. If we, living in the Soviet system, one way or another understood what awaits us. I did not expect, living in the Soviet Union, a catastrophic development of events. But I now live in a new political device and economic, and I cannot vouch even in the next three years.

- You anticipated the question: how do you see the future? And do you see him?

- I see him in a very difficult, conflict political procedure, and this does not suit me. Unfortunately, they did not give me the opportunity to say this - that the strangulation of the country, the immersion of the country into a political crackling, into a political orgasm - this is destructive for the country. There should not be so many politics, it should not have such a power form. The state should occupy a prevailing form of economic activity, education, education, the creation of some social institutions. Here is the task of the state. And our problem is that we are suffocating from politics, wherever you step - everywhere is politics.

“ Didn't they destroy it with us?”

- Well, how, and the power behavior of the state is the highest manifestation of state policy. The state has the main function is power, and we know it. Even in Western countries, the power reserve is almost the main one. And the fact that the so -called parties vote incomparably smaller number of people in comparison with "United Russia" is an absolute fact. You can steal 20 percent of the vote, 25 percent, but you cannot steal the amount that is, with all the fraud of catastrophic, which is. All the same, most of the population connects a large support, of course, with the ruling party. This is the instinct of the population. Not a people, but a population.

- Yes, but this time it turned out, as experts defined, mathematicians, no more than 30 percent, if everything were honest, United Russia would receive.

- So, yes, the crisis situation is suitable on this side, and therefore, the further elections will occur in the future in an even more difficult and tough form. And this speaks precisely about the absolutely power version of the country's life. And once again I want to say that I regret that my speech caused such a reaction of the president and such a generally negative reaction, it seems to me, even members of the Council. Because none of the members of the Council, well, except for this third group in which I am in fact, did not support me, and those who supported, do not quite agree with what I said.

- Do you expect that at least the village of Luzhitsa will you benefit a specific one?

No need to rejoice now, you have to wait for the result

-I expect that the administration of the Leningrad region will begin to move somehow. We make the film just about this people, my student makes a documentary film about this situation, and at least we will definitely do this. And if a decree from the president, as he promised, maybe there they will begin to do this. It will not act-I think that this corporation, there is some kind of petrochemical, will crush the Leningrad region, and they will build this road, this denouement, they will cut out this forest, demolish this cemetery if the administration of the Leningrad region will not stand. But we must pay attention that these people are not the first time to contact the administration of the Leningrad Region, and only the fact that we said that I will have a word at a meeting with the president, and they sent this letter, this was the last hope. And there were appeals to them, they were in the region. Let's see what will happen. If it turns out, then ... but they are crafty, they are all very crafty. They can promise the president a hundred with all kinds of promises in one voice, and they will say in another voice: that you, this crazy Sokurov said something there, and there, in fact, a half people live, the cemetery there are three crosses, and so on, and we will spend 50 million on the transfer of this communication. This is all done calmly in the offices. Here you just need to see how it will develop over time. No need to rejoice now, we must wait for the result.