Translated material
“He’s convincingly fussing.” Social networks about Khodorkovsky at Dudya's
Six years later, Yuri Dud again had a long interview with Mikhail Khodorkovsky. What is obvious is that the conversation was built around a large revision of the nineties, now going on in the RuNet at the instigation of Maria Pevchikh.
At the same time, Khodorkovsky made a completely polar impression on different viewers.
For the second day I’ve been tormenting Dudya and Khodorkovsky. How boring he is😏 And he’s always fidgeting like he’s in a frying pan... In general, you don’t have to waste your time...
— Mihali (@Mihali_Mow) May 23, 2024
Even his statements on a specific topic are interpreted completely differently.
I listened to Khodorkovsky from Dudya and his excuses, of course, from the series “everyone ran, and I ran, because I was the director of the kindergarten.” Well, okay, there is little demand from him. But he gave a base about Chechnya: in order to fight separatism, it is not necessary to iron the region with FABs.
— Brought to you by procrastination (@smiil) May 22, 2024
Khodorkovsky again repeated his thesis that the war in Chechnya was a response to the desire of the Chechens to secede from Russia, which, in his opinion, should not have been allowed under any circumstances. Just as he was a goat, he still is!
— Vatchagaev (@Vatchagaev) May 22, 2024
One unexpected thing was the mention of the Rothschilds in connection with YUKOS, which clearly caught the attention of commentators.
Conspiracy theorists: Khodor was just a figurehead, in reality Yukos was owned by the British through the Rothschilds Me: Oh, that’s nonsense Khodorkovsky: in Yukos there was a so-called “protector”, a person absolutely entrusted to me, whose task was to take away my owner’s powers if something happened, this is Lord Jacob Rothschild pic.twitter.com/YtiF7YgZiZ
— Bad Russian Far East (@vorsin_alexey) May 22, 2024
Khodorkovsky, in his interview with Dudu, said that Lord Jacob Rothschild served as a “protector” at YUKOS.
That is, he was the main person who is authorized to take any action in the event of problems arising with Khodorkovsky himself.
You should see Dudya’s face on the word “Rothschild” 😀
I even feel a little sorry for the grant-eating Liberachs. All these years they assured us that YUKOS is such an efficient company in which the foreign backstage had no interest, the evil Putin ruined everything.
Yes, comrades, I didn’t believe it myself and listened to this passage three times. Mikhail Borisovich Khodorkovsky tells Dudya that the role of “protector” in YUKOS was played by... Jacob Rothschild. Yes, the same fourth Baron Rothschild from the Rothschild family, who died in February at the age of 87.
I have three questions.
1. Why haven’t intelligence and propaganda reported this important information to us over these twenty-odd years? Didn't they know?
2. Why are the Vatans silent? I opened the Internet this morning, being sure that everything here was on fire. But here nothing is burning, just the usual flares of lethargic bickering with poekhs.
3. Why did Khodorkovsky tell this? So that the Russian people can once again be convinced of how correctly Putin acted by defeating YUKOS and imprisoning Khodor - by pulling Russia out of the Rothschild bondage? Does Hodor need this? I don't understand.
At the same time, some commentators considered Khodorkovsky’s manner of speaking about his past, privatization and participation in politics to be evasive.
Khodorkovsky at Dudya: - Listen, Murzagulov is not my employee - Who pays his salary? - Well, apparently he is himself or someone else. At the same time, 2 minutes before, he did not deny that Murzagulov works for his media 🤡🤡🤡 pic.twitter.com/ZDrE1vwNvr
— correspondence polemic (@bybybybybyq) May 22, 2024
Brief summary of Khodorkovsky's interview with Dudu - Sorry, I entered the wrong door in the 90s... I thought that the phone screen would be silent from the holiness of Michael, it’s even strange that I didn’t cry to complete the image...
— LADY with FUSE (@aperegarom) May 22, 2024
I like them all so much, from Shenderovich to Khodorkovsky, you sit here, sometimes, and curse yourself for bullshit from a hundred years ago, you call people and they never made mistakes, they were always on the right side, any of their actions has a logical and correct interpretation, charm
— Rudolf Sikorski (@exel_lence) May 22, 2024
“He had no personal security, shared a modest hut with Lebedev, all his life he had the habit of smiling idiotically at the most inappropriate moments” - you listened to the contents of the first 30 minutes of Khodorkovsky’s three-hour interview with Dudy. Can I not watch any further? Otherwise it makes me feel nauseous.
Khodor: for five minutes he tells Dudu that he never had security, and his children always went to school without security, and now there is no security, and in general.
Also Khodor after 5 minutes: he says that Surkov was initially recommended to him as a bodyguard.
It’s interesting to listen to Dud about how Khodorkovsky himself and his daughter did not have constant security, when I personally went with her in some shaggy year to the shooting of the video for Nogu Svelo and there were 2 security guards with her at all times
— Shhhhh (@polly_brewer) May 22, 2024
Foreign agent Khodorkovsky in a new interview with foreign agent Dudu: I didn’t steal, I took advantage of holes in the law!
Dud: but loans-for-shares auctions look like theft, maybe because this is theft? MBKh: you can’t steal something that doesn’t belong to you. This is amazing logic. They actually saved enterprises because they bought them out and started paying them salaries. And finally... they took a huge risk!! https://t.co/D5UXmqE31R
— Freedom for the raccoon #nowar (@AlenaFo07055545) May 22, 2024
Meanwhile, Khodorkovsky says that if someone in power is given something as a gift, but he “does not perceive it as his own,” then this is not corruption.
In short, it’s not a war crime if you were having fun. And I agree. That's where we stand. Now Michal Borisovich, what doesn’t suit you in life then?
Yura, you are also a socialist, like Pevchikh, if you ask such questions with your loans-for-shares auctions and a sense of shame, saying you pay little taxes. Against your background, even Khodorkovsky looks like a free capitalist and explains to you the common truths.
The most interesting thing is that people like Yura have a claim in the field of loans-for-shares auctions not against the state, but against the people who paid money for the property. They say it's your fault for buying it.
Dud in 2018: Uncle Misha, and Uncle Misha, tell me what “Yeltsin” is! Dud in 2024: Michal Borisych, don’t get in my face, whose money was in the box?
— Artemy Leonov 🦁 (@Leonov_mr) May 23, 2024
Khodorkovsky's interview is simply fire. Behind Zyuganov were the Barkashites, behind Yeltsin the oligarchs, in 96 a military coup was being prepared. A wonderful time of freedom and opportunity, yeah.
— IndIvIdualIsm (@sunforallofus) May 23, 2024
“Zyuganov had to be stopped, because he could lead to the next crisis, as a result of which a dictator could come to power. That’s what he could do!” (c) MBKh in an interview with Dudu 1:04:19 How good it is that with Yeltsin such a risk was completely eliminated! pic.twitter.com/oA9D4y1LOz
— Vasya forever (@vasya_tata) May 22, 2024
I liked Khodorkovsky’s combination of supporting Prigozhin with imagine if Zyuganov brought someone like Prigozhin to power
— Nikon Kovalev (@nikonneunzig) May 22, 2024
Khodorkovsky does not see a problem with oligarchs financing election candidates. In addition to the fact that this is a potentially corrupting factor, it also eliminates equality of opportunity. And the law even declares limits on donations from one individual/legal entity.
It is clear that all these prohibitions are easily circumvented through black cash registers and/or fragmentation of sponsorship. Therefore, if it were up to me, I would completely ban private money in elections. Financing of election campaigns would be allowed only at the expense of the state. Under such a system, advertising space in private and state media would be purchased with budget money, leaflets would be financed, etc. Each candidate would receive equal opportunities to campaign, regardless of his financial situation or the support of the oligarchs.
Yes, with such a system, taxpayers will lose in the moment: budget expenses for elections increase. But in the long run we would only benefit: elections would become more fair, truly worthy candidates, even without money bags, would get more chances. And there would be no corruption ties from the very beginning, when business finances politicians in exchange for future government contracts and other preferences.
I did a lot of interviews with Khodorkovsky. And I always watch/read/listen to his great interviews. He thinks during a conversation, and does not give out ready-made clichés. He is sincere, especially in the years after his release from prison. He is willing to admit when he was not accurate or fair. And he, of course, is already a living history of both the 90s and 2000s. It didn’t seem to me that Dud was deliberately aggressive in places (I was just discussing this with one of MBK’s friends). But this is what could become Yuri’s problem in the near future. He is no longer the naive, ignorant boy who doesn’t hesitate to ask. He was great in this role, but grew out of it. If you want to talk about privatization, sit down and figure it out for yourself, form your own opinion, even if it is opposite to the opinion of your interlocutor, but without knowledge it will be difficult to continue in this kind of interview.
Interesting interview with Khodorkovsky. He talks a lot, argues a lot, wants to argue a lot, but his position is convincing. But when the conversation turns from the 90s to support for Prigozhin, to Murzagulov - to what was already happening before my eyes - then the logic of MBKh is discredited for me. Because for me the whole conversation about the 90s is about ends and means. Defenders of the 90s say: should you take checkers or go? And in response to them, we just keep going without checkers and we can’t stop. And instead of drawing checkers, you all went about your own business.
Khodorkovsky himself says - yes, there was a problem with the checkers, others were needed, like these. And from the outside it even inspires confidence, but we see his checkers: we need to support Prigozhin, who killed his employees, and drive 20 thousand Muscovites onto the streets when Putin withdraws his troops to the Oka. Well, besides the fact that this sounds like a complete nerd to me, it is also, well, how can I put it - vile? At that time, I didn’t really believe the proposals for the 90s.
Well, separately: MBKh says there that he grew up under Brezhnev and it would never have occurred to him to blame his parents for handing over the country to him the way he got it.
This is what I especially want to argue with.
The claims are made not to the parents, but to those who had a chance to finally break, as Navalny said, the vicious circle of the thaw and the ghoul, but they [missed] this chance. And all the time they point fingers either at each other or at these very children, they say, first achieve it. Although the children a) have grown up, in my opinion, much more self-critical b) largely because of their “parents” they cannot achieve anything.
Of course, it’s difficult to build a normal conversation here, because without being there and being in this sense, how to put it, innocent, you always want to say - so this is where the dog is buried, it’s all your fault! And of course you want to endlessly protect yourself from this. But the conversation about who exactly is to blame is not as important to me (I really have enough of Putin at the moment) as the conversation about what was done wrong. And how I wish that those who did it would finally talk about it.