Alfred Koch: Putin needs to be allowed to save face. Alfred Koch: "Power is maintained through blunt force." “Honest and open competition, apparently, is generally abhorrent to Putin’s psychotype.”

Illustration copyright RIA Novosti Image caption At home, a criminal case was opened against the former Deputy Prime Minister under the article “smuggling”; Alfred Koch has been living in Germany since the spring of 2014

Now the former head of the State Property Committee and Deputy Prime Minister in the government of Viktor Chernomyrdin lives in Bavaria. He cannot return to Russia: a criminal case has been opened against him in his homeland under the article of smuggling.

Koch left the government 17 years ago, but the results of his work are still being debated. He himself also prefers to remain visible. True, not as a politician or statesman, but as a writer and blogger.

100 thousand people subscribe to his blog on Facebook. And, in the end, as the author himself suggests, it was the large audience of his ironic and critical posts that became the reason for pressure from the Russian authorities and the subsequent criminal case.

In an interview with a BBC correspondent Pavel Bandakov Alfred Koch spoke about his vision of Russia's place in world politics, the possible economic collapse of Ukraine and its consequences for the country, as well as his last meeting with Kakha Bendukidze, a recently deceased Georgian politician who is called the author of successful Georgian reforms.

The case of smuggling

Investigators claim that in November 2013, during a customs inspection of Alfred Koch's luggage, a “painting depicting a sea surf and a stone pier” was discovered and seized. Suspicion was aroused by the signature “I. Brodsky 1911” in the lower left corner of the picture. As follows from the investigation documents, a criminal case under Article 226.1 “Smuggling” was opened on February 11, 2014. In early April, Alfred Koch wrote on his Facebook that an FSB investigative team accompanied by “physical protection soldiers” arrived at his Moscow address. Koch himself was in Germany at that time, where he went on business. “I am now banned from entry,” he wrote. Alfred Koch claims that the painting is a late copy and has no historical value. Forensic examinations are currently being carried out.

I have long noticed that Russians are not very critical of themselves. I thought about this phenomenon for a long time. I live abroad a lot. When communicating, for example, with Germans or Americans, I noticed that they treat themselves with irony, and, in general, do not create illusions about themselves. And such an ironic attitude towards oneself is considered good manners in Western countries. Russians never treat themselves with irony - they are always at the last degree of seriousness, well, just with clenched teeth...

After all, what Russians say about the West, and even what Putin says about the West, is often true. The truth about American imperialism, and that they stick their noses in everywhere, and that they had nothing to do in Iraq, etc. But the right to such criticism must be earned.

BBC: Is it possible to say that there is now a virtual civil war going on in Russia?

A.K.: I cannot speak in terms of civil war, because the Internet is a specific space. This notorious anonymity and impunity operates there. It is so absolute that rudeness and the desire to unbalance one’s opponent become an end in itself. Therefore, the intensity of passions on the Internet for the last 10 or 15 years has been such that it seems that a civil war is going on between everyone and everyone...

In general, I don’t remember spontaneous civil wars that arose due to internal civil conflict in its pure form. They are always provoked by someone. Civil conflict is always inherent within society. But it very rarely turns into war.

BBC: Who or what provoked the conflict in eastern Ukraine?

A.K.: Of course, Putin. The conflict between the Russian-speaking east and the Ukrainian-speaking west – it can be characterized as a conflict between the collective “Yanukovych” and the democrats – has always existed in Ukraine. We've known about him for 25 years. But it never turned into a military confrontation.

BBC: Could you imagine that this would start in a neighboring country?

A.K.: Well, how can I say: you know, I always predicted it because it already happened. Explaining why this happened is always easier than predicting.

What did I see? I saw that since the end of 2011, Putin's rating has gradually and steadily dropped. The erosion of the regime was obvious. And it was clear that by 2016, when there would be Duma elections, and certainly by 2018, he would drop to such a level where no amount of manipulation could get him into the presidency again. And this meant that the regime had to come up with something.

I understood that they would come up with some kind of trick. Maybe canceling the elections... Yeltsin found himself in a similar situation in January 1996. Remember, he lost the elections to the Duma with pomp, the communists actually took the majority. Then Yeltsin’s closest advisers – precisely the security forces – advised him to dissolve the Duma altogether. And Kulikov and Chubais barely stopped this matter...

You can kill one person, one person can die of hunger, but it is impossible to destroy an entire state and an entire people. The Ukrainian people have now already matured as a nation. Right now it has taken place.

I thought Putin’s security forces would come up with something similar now. You know, as they like to say, they don’t change horses at the crossing (I, however, have the feeling that we are not walking across the river, but along it). I thought they would throw in some kind of idiotic rhetoric, push it through all channels, and on this basis they would close the “Democracy in Russia” project... To make things even more important, some terrorist attacks or something else would happen in Russia. And then say: “You see, we are sliding into anarchy again... Let's temporarily stop the operation of the constitution.” There was the burning of the Reichstag and the suspension of the constitution. We've been through it all, we know everything.

And I was expecting something like this. But life turned out to be richer. The constitution continues, we are building democracy, there will be elections. Only now 80% love the president.

BBC: In the spring, you actively wrote about Ukraine. Much more than about Russia...

A.K.: Well, it’s more interesting there. There is movement there.

BBC: In the spring, you wrote that everything is complicated in the Ukrainian economy. What is your attitude now?

A.K.: I talked a lot with Kakha Bendukidze, shortly before his death. Rest in peace. We talked with him for three days on this topic. He came to visit me. We walked with him, talked for a long time, drank, by the way. He felt great. In any case, he looked like a completely healthy person.

Kakha loved to repeat the same phrase that Nietzsche said before him: “Everything that does not kill us makes us stronger.” Therefore, his opinion was that it would be good if an economic collapse occurred in Ukraine. This will clear the clearing and give carte blanche for radical reforms, because things can’t get any worse anyway.

You can kill one person, one person can die of hunger, but it is impossible to destroy an entire state and an entire people. The Ukrainian people have now already matured as a nation. That's exactly what happened now.

The only problem is that the later these reforms begin, the harder they will be. The greater the gap will be with countries that continue to move while we mark time...

The same applies to Russia, by the way.

BBC: You said that one of the main problems of Russia is the lack of institutional reforms. Your critics – and critics of governments of the 1990s in general – respond to this: you were in the government, weren’t you? Why didn't you end up creating something that works effectively?

A.K.: Lie. The institution of gubernatorial elections, for example, worked well for us. Why did they need to be canceled in 2004 because of the terrorist attack in Beslan? Now, I think, even Putin’s followers will not be able to explain how the terrorist attack in Beslan and the cancellation of gubernatorial elections are connected. It was a working institution with all the infrastructure, consisting of people, customs, laws, rules (spoken and unspoken, formal and informal)…

Other institutions were created: the stock market, the real estate market, political parties, controversy in the press... These are all institutions necessary for a market economy and a free society.

BBC: You were in a government that actively pursued reforms. Now your former colleagues find themselves in different situations. Anatoly Chubais heads the state corporation. Boris Nemtsov is a deputy of the Yaroslavl Duma. Are you in Germany...

A.K.: Oleg Sysuev - at Alfa-Bank... You can list them. We have a lot of people who have settled in well.

I don't think Chubais is doing what he thinks.

BBC: By the way, this is your situation. Do you think everything is fine with you?

A.K.: Well, listen, there is no limit to perfection. Of course, I would like it to be better.

BBC: Does the fact that you, for example, cannot appear in Russia, sadden you very much?

A.K.: Of course it's sad. But what does very strong mean? There are different degrees of nostalgia. There is nostalgia for Maxim Gorky, who could not live without money. And so Budberg returned to Moscow with Baroness. And there is Bunin, who did not want to return for any price. So he felt discomfort from the fact that he could not return to Russia? Probably he did. And there is Joseph Brodsky, who could have returned, but did not return...

BBC: You, too, could have a great job in some state corporation...

A.K.: So I worked in it - Gazprom-Media. Bad state corporation? But I left for the same reason I won’t work for any state corporation: I don’t want to!

You know, people are divided into two categories (this is not my formula, I don’t know who came up with it... Or maybe, by the way, it’s mine). For some, money is the equivalent of freedom. For others, money is the equivalent of power. And these are different people.

For me, money is the equivalent of freedom. And if I see that the further process of earning money limits my freedom and does not increase it, then I stop this process. Because freedom is more important than money. At least for me.

BBC: You were like-minded people with Anatoly Chubais...

A.K.: So we are like-minded people even now. But we are not like-minded people. We think alike, but do things differently. I do what suits my thoughts. But I don’t think Chubais is doing what he thinks.

BBC: Boris Nemtsov is involved in politics.

A.K.: Boris, rather, does what he thinks is right. In this sense, he is like-minded not only with me, but also with his actions.

BBC: Nemtsov is organizing a rally in Yaroslavl against the abolition of mayoral elections. You share his views and are ready to subscribe to this...

A.K.:...But I can’t participate in this. You know, I will survive the tragedy of non-participation in the Yaroslavl rallies. There are much more prosaic and sad things related to the fact that I cannot come to Russia. For example, I cannot visit my mother. She, thank God, can come to me. I can't come to my father's grave. These things sadden me much more than the inability to participate in the Yaroslavl rallies.

BBC: If a person criticizes the Russian government, does he feel safe?

A.K.: Woland, in my opinion, said: “A brick will never fall on anyone’s head for no reason at all”... I am a rather callous person. No, I don't feel any danger. But that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I really like the proverb: “Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean you’re not being followed.” Objectively, there must be some kind of pressure.

It is clear that I am causing a lot of trouble. Let them pretend that I don’t exist. But this is impossible with [my Facebook] subscribers of 100 thousand, with posts that have 200-300 shares, and sometimes even 1000. For several years, hitting where it hurts the most, and the government that closes publications with 10 thousand subscribers, does he look at this calmly? And he thinks I’m not doing any harm? Of course, you can put on such a face, but we are adults, it is clear that I bring them harm...

The main part of the democratic crowd says: “There is no need to save Putin’s face! It’s his own fault.” Well, okay. Then it will end in a war, some kind of massacre, you will all be imprisoned... Do you want it?

BBC: You spend quite a lot of time on Facebook.

A.K.: Contrary to popular belief, no. If you look, I post in the morning and late in the evening. And I work the rest of the working day.

BBC: Once in Germany, did you change your occupation?

A.K.: I have been doing business in Germany for 10 years. I don’t have any Russian business. I sold everything.

BBC: Is there no point in doing business in Russia anymore?

A.K.: Not now. In the near future - quite possible.

BBC: When is this in the near future?

A.K.: Someday either Putin will leave or he will be left. Or when he realizes that something needs to change. Both options are possible. In general, I believe that the key to solving Russian problems now lies in the West. First of all, among the European powers.

BBC: Why?

A.K.: Long story... I believe that Russia during the 1990s and even in the early 2000s made it clear to the West that it would like to integrate with it, to become part of the West. The West did not respond adequately to this. And even Putin, at first, was a rather sincere integrationist: he wanted a unified missile defense system, he wanted visa-free entry, he even wanted some kind of road map for joining the European Union. Then a series of misunderstandings, indifferences, etc. occurred.

My understanding is that Western leaders simply did not have the personal scale to understand the challenge that lies before them. [...]

Now Europe faces a challenge, and if it does not understand this challenge, then this space will turn into China.

It seems to me, although I may be deluding myself, that the Kremlin itself understands that it has driven itself into an idiotic position. But he needs to be given some kind of algorithm for getting out of this situation while saving face. And now the main part of the democratic crowd says: “There is no need to save Putin’s face! It’s his own fault.” Well, okay. Then it will end in a war, some kind of massacre, you will all be imprisoned... Do you want it? No? But we didn’t save Putin’s face...

Russia can either be part of an alliance with China or part of an alliance with the West. There is no third.

And if he is given, for example, the status of the person who brought Russia to Europe and made it a European power? Maybe he will agree with this status?

BBC: This would be a compromise that would require a giant step on the part of Europe...

A.K.: What's wrong with this for Europe? Why not make this compromise? What, Russia is so backward and non-European that even Turkey bothered to get the [EU] road map, but Russia didn’t?

Russia does not understand that it cannot be an independent center of power. She will never understand this, and there is no point in hoping for it. No person can ever imagine - let alone a country with a population of 140 million - that he is actually a pawn. Russia cannot be an independent center of power due to its small population, due to its small economy, due to a huge number of reasons. It can either be part of an alliance with China or part of an alliance with the West. There is no third.

And there is no need to pull any customs unions out of thin air. No Russian defense potential, including nuclear, will be able to protect its true sovereignty, which, first of all, is based on the economy. The economy will still become part of a larger economic system - either Chinese or European. And if the patient himself does not understand this, doctors must decide.

And Europe must understand what it is ready for. Moreover, in the next 50-100 years we need to roll up our sleeves to integrate this vast territory into Europe. Invest there not only money, invest there institutions, customs, education...

BBC: The institutions don't allow this. Laws on foreign agents are adopted...

A.K.: This means that we need to integrate the authors of the term themselves. Let's look at this as a large systems project. How many children of the Russian elite live in Europe? This means that they are already agents of influence. They can be referred to their parents.

BBC: Would you agree to return to civil service?

A.K.: Never say never. But today I simply don’t see myself in government agencies. I don’t want to be part of that force that always wants evil and does... evil. No, this is impossible. If something changes... But it must change very much - Gaidar will rise from the grave and lead the country. Then I, cursing and swearing, will take out my rusty sword...

BBC: Your comrades Nemtsov and Bendukidze were ready to help the government agencies of Ukraine.

A.K.: I am still ready to help them... But with whom? Advisor? An advisor is complete irresponsibility. “Why did you listen to me? You never know what I said. You have 10 advisers - why did you decide to listen to me? Or maybe I’m a fool?” No. The advisor is no one. Take responsibility - then yes.

BBC: Do you regret the decisions you made while in government service?

A.K.: Look, I made dozens of decisions a day. Which of these 10 thousand should I regret? The scale of a particular decision becomes clear over time. Sometimes it seemed then that this was nonsense, but now it turns out that this was the key decision of your life.

Why should I analyze my mistakes? Let my enemies talk about them.

BBC: Is there a decision you feel responsible for? You, like Chubais, are accused of piling up a garden and destroying a great country...

A.K.: I can tell you frankly that I don’t give a damn about these accusations.

Why should I analyze my mistakes? Let my enemies talk about them. I last worked in government in 1997. 17 years ago! And now not a day goes by without my mistakes being analyzed. Why should I join the chorus of these voices?

BBC: This chorus says that all the current troubles come from the 1990s.

A.K.: When I was at school, we were always told that our life was so bad because the tsarist government made such a mess in 1913, and then there was the war - so we are falling behind. This was taught to me at school - and I studied at school from 1968 to 1978. But this is a joke!

I think that in Germany in 1968 they did not teach that they lived worse than the British, because they were devastated after the Second World War. Moreover, in 1968 they already lived better than the British. Or the Japanese. I think they were not taught in 1975 that they had devastation and the atomic bomb was thrown on them twice - because already in 1975 they lived better than the Americans.

How much can you talk about the “dashing 90s”?! You guys haven’t had any Yeltsinism for 15 years!

You became a publicist by accident - it all started in 2001 with your responses as the head of Gazprom-Media to open letters from members of the Entevesh, who were trying to protect the TV channel from state pressure. At that time, many did not even believe that an official could have an equal discussion with journalism stars Evgeny Kiselev and Leonid Parfenov.

Not entirely true, my first articles appeared earlier. Suffice it to recall the material “It’s time to explain,” about the results of privatization, in Kommersant in 1998, or the book “The Sale of the Soviet Empire,” which was published the same year in the USA. So I approached 2001 with serious journalistic baggage. And therefore, of course, I was unpleasant about the doubts about my writing capabilities that were expressed at that moment by some opponents.

Today, Facebook is the only way for you to express your opinion every day. Why are you writing there?

Everything is simple here: I want the information clearing in Russia not to be as sterile as the authorities want. Therefore, I not only feel great satisfaction from the fact that I can write what I think so freely on the Internet, but I also consider it my duty. I'm relatively safe. I have no need to serve someone to earn money. Therefore, it is my duty to write about what journalists in Russia cannot write about without risk to themselves. If I, being in such “chocolate” conditions, remain silent, it will be cowardice and betrayal of those people whom I respect and are proud of. Moreover, some of them have already been killed, and I do not consider it possible now to change the principles to which we swore allegiance together with them and for which they died. This would be all the more a betrayal on my part since I have a significant audience, which has become so large precisely thanks to my free speech. Perhaps this sounds too pompous, but I feel my mission and am ready to devote a lot of time to it.

The Internet allows you to get instant reader feedback. How important are responses to your posts to you and how do you react to fights in the comments?

Yes, it's very cool to immediately get a reader's reaction. But I won’t say that it’s so important for me whether the audience liked the post or not. For me, the breadth of dissemination of my thoughts is much more important than the extent to which these thoughts are approved by the public. I think there are many among my subscribers who disagree with me. But it is also important for them that there is a platform where they can read uncensored texts. Only my friends can comment on my posts, as for reposts, I read the comments in them and quite harshly ban boors and trolls. So my approach to “unconstructiveness” is simple: if there is a demagogue, there is a problem, if there is no demagogue, there is no problem.

How is Internet trolling different from bad character?

To be honest, I am not interested in delving into the subconscious of flawed people who engage in trolling. What are they guided by? And the devil knows. This is something Freudian, associated with lack of sex, failure and envy. And in what proportion are these components present in one or another individual of a given subspecies of primates - is this so important?

Do you feel an addiction - a desire to speak out that makes you abandon other things?

There is a dependency, of course. But not to such an extent that you abandon everything. It would be correct to call this a hobby. Interesting, exciting, but still a hobby. In addition, I love climbing mountains, traveling, building houses, and I won’t say that I’m ready to trade some new peak for an evening in front of a computer screen. Rather, it’s the opposite: I’ll leave the computer and go to the mountains.

You regularly performed in the not very rewarding genre of a predictor. To what extent do these predictions come true?

I don't think I make predictions too often. Although sometimes it happens... Do they come true? Of course not. As a rule, they do not come true. This is the fate of all forecasts. Yes, actually, that’s not what they are made for. And most often in order to warn and prepare people. I will even express the idea that perhaps humanity is avoiding those scenarios that were predicted for it precisely because they were predicted? I dare to assume that if the scenario with Crimea and Donbass had been predicted by someone in advance, then it would quite possibly have been avoided. As for my forecast for the near future, it is gloomy. And the longer the government basks in people’s love, the more pessimistic and pessimistic my forecast will be. And for the people, and for the government itself, by the way, too.

They have switched places: the Internet today is more real than its main competitor - TV. Living in Germany, do you see something similar in Europe?

I think this is a purely Russian phenomenon. And it is connected with the fact that television in Russia has ceased to be a source of information about the outside world, but has become a tool of propaganda. In Germany, the silver linings on television and on the Internet are the same: politicians, including opposition ones, pop stars, actors, athletes.

The scandal that broke out in the liberal political community after the celebration of the 60th anniversary of the editor-in-chief of Nezavisimaya Gazeta, Konstantin Remchukov, moved to a new level.

Now the Internet is “locking tongues,” the editor of “Snob” Nikolay Uskov(pictured) and ex-head of the State Property Committee of Russia Alfred Koch- an official of the Yeltsin wave, responsible for carrying out privatization in the mid-90s in the Russian Federation.

Let us recall that at Remchukov’s birthday party both well-known liberal politicians and journalists and Kremlin officials appeared.

Among the guests of the editor-in-chief of "NG" were seen the press secretary of the head of state Dmitry Peskov, opposition politician, editor-in-chief of Echo, musician, head of Sberbank German Gref, TV presenter Vladimir Pozner, top manager of Rosneft Mikhail Leontyev and other media persons.

After the festive banquet, numerous media outlets and social network users reacted sharply to the gathering of such ideologically diverse politicians and journalists.

The main bone of contention was Alexey Venediktov’s selfie with Mikhail Leontyev.

The day after the event, Alexey Venediktov responded to criticism from his comrades in the liberal camp:

“My dears, I am not fighting for the people’s love, I do not represent either a political party or an ideological sect. I am working. I have arranged an interview with President Putin’s press secretary for Echo of Moscow, and an interview with the Japanese Ambassador. I asked Mikhail Leontiev organize an interview for Igor Sechin's Echo.

I arranged meetings before and for the broadcast with a lot of people of different views and political weight - and I met everyone in this place. Such secular receptions are a workplace for both the journalist and the media manager - the organizer of media processes. I will not ask your permission - where should I go, who should I meet and what should I drink - this is not within your competence. I’m not a politician - I can’t be elected and, in my understanding, that means I don’t have to report.", - Venediktov snapped.

“First they hounded Dr. Lisa for saving the children of Donbass with the support of the Russian presidential administration and Vyacheslav Volodin personally, then Venediktov for taking a photo with Mikhail Leontyev, and at the same time Andrei Makarevich, who dared to stand next to Dmitry Peskov, press -secretary to President Putin. I understand that these critics burn with anger, born of the injustices of our time. In Soviet propaganda, such an emotion was called “impotent anger.”, - Uskov noted.

According to Uskov, the liberal public of Russia is the best proof that the country deserves its fate.

“You deserve what is happening to you. You want a civil war, to which you will drive the unfortunate idiots with your fiery calls. And you yourself will sit on Facebook, well, maybe move almost to the front line, to Strelka or Jean-Jacques.” "All your revolutionary spirit is like the erotic visions of impotent people. They are bright, but fruitless. After you show off, you will be replaced by other people - not impotent people.".

In particular, Uskov cited as an example a quote from an interview with Ksenia Sokolova for “Snob”:

“If Kokh, Parkhomenko, Bykov, etc. want to fight Putin, let them fight. But only with Putin, who has power, the army, riot police, and not with me and the dying children! Do they want to achieve a change of power? Great, let them work! Let them risk their lives, go to prison for their beliefs, come out as heroes, bring millions of supporters into the streets, inspired by their courage and heroism. So far, in my opinion, there is nothing to be inspired by. Except perhaps the bold exposure on Facebook of Glinka, who stole children and steals money that gullible citizens donate to her. Shame on you, gentlemen!"

Immediately after Uskov’s article there was a reaction from Alfred Koch, who, according to Uskov, is in Munich (Koch himself reported in April 2014 that a criminal case had been opened against him in Russia under the article “Smuggling”).

Firstly, Koch stated that he really “fled abroad,” but “I escaped from prison on an obviously bogus charge.” As Koch noted, “Misha Khodorkovsky was not at all delighted, and he strongly advises me against it.”

Secondly, Koch claims that he criticizes only Vladimir Putin, although he does this “from a safe distance. But many people can be blamed for this. For example, Herzen or Lenin.” Koch also stated that he did not criticize Venediktov and Makarevich.

Thirdly, Koch criticized the “opposition activities” of Uskov himself and the magazine “Snob” he published:

“The magazine you publish is unprofitable, exists on alms, and its audience is less than the number of subscribers on my FB page. So, before giving advice on a universal scale and universal stupidity, I would advise you to prove at least your professional suitability. And if this is your activity you call a real struggle, then the LDPR is the opposition. My activity began in the nineties with work together with Gaidar, Chubais and Chernomyrdin. I was responsible in the team for privatization and budget revenues at a time when the price of oil was hanging around ten dollars for a barrel and nothing else, but I cannot be blamed for cowardice and inability to take responsibility. You can even ask your boss Prokhorov about this.".

The editor-in-chief of “Snob” also did not keep himself waiting, and the next day he published answers to Koch’s theses on his account.

According to Uskov, before reproaching him for loyalty to the authorities, it should be noted that he - Uskov - is in Moscow, and Koch is in Munich, Germany, where he is hiding from the Russian authorities, although the chief editor of "Snob" himself does not want Koch's fate.

Regarding the unprofitability of "Snob", Uskov told Koch that he was mistaken, and the magazine was doing well:

“Alfred, I don’t know what the audience of your magazine is, the audience of Snob is about 15 million people a month, it has grown tens of times since I joined the project three years ago. I don’t think that this is small. I will only be glad if you more. I came to a project that was in a very bad state. I inherited many mistakes, and objective difficulties were added to them: the legislator is stifling the press with laws banning advertising of alcohol and tobacco, changes in taxes, etc. At the Vedomosti newspaper "for example, also losses".

At the same time, Uskov said that he is grateful to “Mr. Prokhorov for his support, which is not motivated by considerations of influence.”

As for “Gatherings at Kostya Remchukov’s,” as Koch called it, here Uskov assured his opponent that he had long been friends with the editor-in-chief of Nezavisimaya Gazeta:

“I am not a forced person. Kostya is my friend, Mikhail Dmitrievich began coming to his birthday two years ago. We have been family friends with the Remchukovs for about ten years.”.

The article contains the following persons:

https://www.site/2013-12-22/alfred_koh_otvetil_na_voprosy_chitateley_site_pravda_odnogo_poslal

“Putin’s entourage is trying with all their might to develop this complex in him...”

Alfred Koch answered questions from site readers. True, he sent one.

In the St. Petersburg government of Anatoly Sobchak, where Vladimir Putin and Alexei Kudrin played the leading roles, our interlocutor was responsible for managing state property. In the mid-90s, in the status of deputy chairman of the State Committee for State Property Management, he oversaw privatization on a federal scale. In 1996-97, he headed the State Property Committee, was deputy chairman of the Russian government, and participated in the so-called “writers’ case,” which is why he resigned. At the beginning of the 2000s - General Director of the Gazprom-Media holding, Chairman of the Board of Directors of the NTV television company. It was during this period that Evgeny Kiselev, Viktor Shenderovich, Mikhail Osokin, and Marianna Maksimovskaya left NTV. Today Alfred Koch is one of the most read political publicists and bloggers in the country. In 2013, in collaboration with Pyotr Aven, he published the book “Gaidar’s Revolution,” in which Anatoly Chubais, Pavel Grachev, Andrei Kozyrev and other members of Gaidar’s government spoke with their memoirs. Alfred Koch received dozens of questions from our readers, including some with “jabs” and even clearly unkind ones. He answered everything.

“The authorities always behave this way all over the world when “people eat”

Dear Alfred! My question - you won't believe it - is about Putin. Before appearing in the White House, and then in the Kremlin, he first appeared in Moscow. Appeared after he brilliantly...lost Sobchak's elections in St. Petersburg in the guise of his chief of staff (it seems I'm not confusing). And he brought him to Moscow to the joy of all Russia, as I believe, Chubais. At least he had Putin at work. You, too, were not far from A.B., and you could not help but know Putin. Question 1: how did everyone get so screwed? Question 2: A few years later, A.B. Chubais, with no less brilliance, lost the elections and pushed the Union of Right Forces forever, first from the Duma, and then from life. Is this a coincidence? Nikolai.

First. You assume incorrectly. It was not Chubais or even Kudrin who “dragged” him to Moscow. He was “dragged” to Moscow by Pavel Borodin. Putin worked for him as his deputy immediately upon his arrival in Moscow from St. Petersburg. Borodin at that time had, to put it mildly, no sympathy for our team, and therefore Chubais could not influence him in this sense. So Putin’s appearance in Moscow is entirely the merit of Pavel Borodin. I don’t know how Putin agreed on this with him.

Second. Chubais did not push the Union of Rightist Forces out of the Duma. In the fall of 2003 (when the Union of Right Forces “lost” the elections) we had a dilemma: publicly speak out in support of Khodorkovsky (who, as you know, was arrested at the end of October) and be excommunicated from all broadcasts for this and lose the elections in early December, or keep your mouth shut and get a dozen seats in the Duma. We chose the first and on the day of Khodorkovsky’s arrest we publicly came out in support of him. For this, the next day Putin demanded that we “stop the hysteria” and turned us off the TV. At all. The result is that we missed 1%. By the way, Yabloko, which chose exactly the opposite strategy (despite the fact that Khodorkovsky was their main sponsor, unlike the Union of Right Forces), also did not get into the Duma. Despite Putin's congratulations.

“Are there people there who really want to change something in Russia? Personally, I don’t know anyone like that.”

Instead of somehow placating the people in a state of economic crisis, they are only angry: anti-tobacco, anti-piracy laws, pension reform, freezing salaries of public sector employees, corruption, etc. At this rate, each region will have its own Biryulyovo and its own Bolotnaya. Alfred Reingoldovich, has the government gone crazy? Is our nut tightening mechanic suicidal? How do you explain this strange behavior? Alexander

Has the government gone crazy? No, I didn't. The locksmith does not have any suicidal syndrome. In general, he is a hedonist. The behavior of the authorities is very logical. And the authorities always behave this way all over the world when “people eat.” What's unclear here? If people went to elections and voted with their heads and not with their bellies, then the authorities would behave differently. However, everyone understands this perfectly well. But at hour H - “I’m too lazy,” again, “the brother-in-law called to take a sample, tea, they’ll choose without me,” etc. And then: “Guard! They're stealing! Bastards! We ourselves are the first bastards. First of all, in relation to yourself and the future of your children.

Hello! The question may seem naive, but still. You know or closely observe many from the very top of power. Tell me, are there people there who really want to change something in Russia? At least for your own sake? They themselves should be uncomfortable in such a situation of complete idiocy. Are they stupidly afraid to organize some kind of opposition? Is anyone planning anything strategically in this regard? I am sure that changes are possible only from above, all this grassroots movement is just entertainment. Marina

I have not been in the civil service for 16 years. I don't have any friends left there. And I haven’t watched their life closely for a long time. Are there people there who really want to change something in Russia? I don’t know... Personally, I don’t know such people. As for your position that “changes are only possible from above, all this grassroots movement is just entertainment,” I don’t agree with this. And Ukraine is a great example of this.

“He develops a feeling of his own irreplaceability. A kind of “Savior syndrome”

Alfred! Is Putin capable of an anti-corruption and personnel revolution from above? I have no doubt that there is a class of professional, honest, patriotic modernizers in the country. But try to break through the current clique that is indifferent to the country. Can modernizers still hope for Putin? Or is he hopeless? Alexei

In my opinion, Putin is not only not a support for the modernization of Russia, but now he is the main obstacle to it. Putin is a person who deeply believes in the power of administration, in the intrinsic value of the state, without its connection to people. He is convinced that the preservation of a unified state is the task for which only the Russian people exist. This is its, the Russian people’s, historical mission and the only reasonable justification for its existence. And now, it seems to me, that metamorphosis is happening to him, which sooner or later always happens to a person who has been in power for more than a psychologically acceptable period of time: he develops a feeling of his own irreplaceability. A kind of “Savior syndrome”. Fortunately, the environment (for completely understandable purposes) is trying with all its might to develop this complex in him.

In your blog (and not only) you often predict a not very happy future for those in power today. Do you really believe that today's people will be "appreciated"? Recently, the Duma supported plans for the construction of new prison facilities. Well, not for yourself, not for “our own people”! And for whom? Wilhelm - First of all, I don't have a blog. I have a wall on Facebook. This is a fundamental difference. Secondly, I deeply believe (this is just faith) that all of us (not only the so-called “today’s”, but all of us) will sooner or later be appreciated. And I even suspect who. The fact that the so-called “today’s” are very rich people does not change anything. Believe me: money does not bring happiness. Money can (!) give freedom. Happiness and freedom are close concepts, but not identical. But if you have money, but you are not free (and the so-called “today’s” are deeply unfree people: they have a Master), then you are doubly unhappy. Thirdly, prisons are built for us. I think I haven’t discovered America for you.

Alfred, good afternoon. For all your negative attitude towards V.V. Putin should admit that he behaves very competently on the world stage, guessing and sometimes even anticipating the moves of his opponents. At the same time, he is not at all involved in affairs within the country. Well, it’s clear that this is not his level and he is not interested in it. In this situation, there should probably be a strong prime minister. Who do you think could lead the government and carry out work within the country? Thank you. Dmitry - I leave without comment the statement about Putin’s extraordinary effectiveness on the world stage. I will only note that the effectiveness of a politician is determined not by loud PR campaigns, but by the number of friends that the country acquires under his leadership and the level of security for the country that he ensured. If the author of the question believes that under Putin the number of friends we have has increased and the level of security in Russia has increased, then he is right. By the way, I don’t think so.

As for the prime minister, it seems to me that Chernomyrdin, for example, was a good prime minister (not to mention Gaidar). I should also mention Kasyanov. Who could lead the government in the future? There are many such people. Here are just a few of them: Alexey Kudrin, Anatoly Chubais, Pyotr Aven, Mikhail Fridman, Viktor Vekselberg, Alexander Abramov, Vladimir Potanin, Roman Abramovich, Vagit Alekperov, etc. All these are people with outstanding managerial talent, broad horizons, enormous connections and influence. These are positive people who have proven their ability to solve problems on a federal scale. Each of them could be an excellent prime minister. If you wanted to. And if (of course) Putin wanted it. But whether he wants a strong prime minister is a big question...

Alfred Reingoldovich! The country is rapidly degrading, and they are already openly talking about the threat of collapse. Why is the political elite silent? Chubais, Aven, Gref... Who else is left there? Or are they preparing to leave quietly? Sergey - What do you think they should do? Douse yourself with gasoline and set yourself on fire? Make an address to the nation? Well, really, what? Each of them has some idea about the nation’s ability to resist this very degradation. Apparently, they believe that this ability is absent and there is no reason to risk their necks. Judge for yourself: what is the point of not remaining silent and thereby dooming yourself to the position of an outcast, if as a result of your demarche you only receive a limp protest from hundreds of human rights activists? Here you are, Sergei, demanding some action from the elite. And why? Why should rich and self-sufficient people risk their heads for you? Why on earth? Do they somehow owe their current position to you? Yes, they owe more to Putin than to you. However, it is you who invite them to oppose him for your sake. Why are you so sure that someone other than yourself should speak in your defense? This reminds me of the famous paradox of Luzhkov, who built a city for the rich, but the poor voted for him. And politicians who speak out in defense of the poor constantly demanded that the rich should speak out against Luzhkov. But their own electorate stubbornly voted for him.

Do you think Putin has enough brains to turn to real federalism and self-government - both in powers and in resources? After all, a little more of Putin’s over-centralization - and the Far East with Siberia and the Urals with the Volga region will simply be “placed” on Moscow. And it will remain with Tambov and Chechnya-Dagestan. Ilya

No. On the contrary, he has enough brains to destroy all remnants of federalism and self-government. Apparently he has a different idea about brains. Doesn't match yours. Judging by what is happening now, no one is putting money on Moscow yet. Well, perhaps just Chechnya - Dagestan.

“What’s the point of not remaining silent and thereby dooming yourself to the position of an outcast, if as a result you only get a lukewarm protest from hundreds of human rights activists?”

I'm interested in your opinion about the North Caucasus. Is the Kremlin doing the right thing by feeding them and turning a blind eye to their outrages committed throughout the country? Is this better than fighting again? But in this way we will also reach a civil war, and one that will be dispersed throughout the entire territory of Russia. What policies should be followed? Kirill

Look, the last thing I want is to be the know-it-all who has all the answers. I'm not an electoral politician. I'm not a politician at all. I am a writer and businessman. I just see that the way of coexistence of such different ethnic groups as, for example, Chechens and Russians, which is being implemented today. - he's no good. I would suggest this analogy: people get divorced. Many people get divorced. Putin, for example, got divorced. Why? Probably because their relationship had run its course. Because people are tired of each other. Because they have already crossed some invisible threshold of the nasty things that they have already said and done to each other. Surely such a threshold exists. And, having crossed this threshold, people will no longer be able to restore what once united them. If anything ever united them at all. Have we crossed this threshold in relations with the North Caucasus? Don't know. There is a lot to say about the fact that you switched. Two wars in ten years is no joke. But on the other hand, in the USA there was also a Civil War and nothing happened - they made peace... However, we had it too. And I still don’t understand: have the Reds and Whites made peace or not?

Regarding the "national question". Why do Russian liberals of the middle and older generation share the view of Vladimir Ilyich Lenin that any nationalism, with the exception of Russian nationalism, is good? Here is fresh confirmation of this: many representatives of the liberal intelligentsia are now applauding the mass protests in Kyiv, wholly and completely imbued with Ukrainian nationalism, the core idea of ​​which is leaving Russia and integrating with Europe. And at the same time, the same representatives of the liberal intelligentsia ostracize those who talk about the need to introduce visas with Central Asia and about putting the question of the advisability of the North Caucasian republics within the Russian Federation to a national referendum. Why does the liberal intelligentsia deny the right of Russians to national self-determination? After all, this is pure ethnic discrimination. Thank you. Kirill - What generation of liberal am I? I hope it's at least average. I may be a bad liberal, but I am not against Russian nationalism. I am for visas with Central Asia. I am for a referendum. What should I do? Grab a machine gun and go to war? What? Organize a referendum - I will come and vote. Organize the Maidan - I will come to it too. Why are you attached to liberals? There are no more than a hundred of them throughout the country. Organize a powerful Russian national movement. Demand changes from the authorities. What? Weak? You should all just kick the liberals...

Moscow - decapitalization (and not in favor of a town closer to Rublyovka, as the current ones want, but in favor of a new capital city of Russia in Siberia, with the scattering of some federal departments across cities and villages of the Russian Federation!). Russia - demoscovization! Moscow and the capital interfere with each other's lives, Moscow and the capital must divorce. And then both Moscow and Russia will have a chance? Arthur - Stormy applause, turning into ovation. Everyone gets up. Arthur - you are a genius. How did we not guess it before? What else? Oh, about the chance... There is always a chance as long as we are alive.

In one of your interviews in 1998, you expressed the idea that in 10-15 years Russia will collapse into a dozen small states. Has your opinion changed on this matter? Boris

It is not true. In that interview, I did not say that Russia would collapse. And he didn’t give a time frame. I said that there is a big risk of collapse. I still think it is still high. Something like this…

Hello! Alfred Reindgoldovich, 13 years have passed since the current ruler of the country came to power. Not only lawyers, like me, a graduate of the Law Faculty of Leningrad State University, but also ordinary people understood that this was a theater of political absurdity under the guise of a “multi-party system.” Question: do you have an inner feeling that sooner or later Russia will come to a two-party system? And do you see any outlines of such parties? Thank you. Andrey

No. I don't have that feeling. It seems to me that the two-party system will not take root in Russia. It seems to me that if real democracy is built in Russia, there will be more capable parties in Russia and political life will be more multidimensional than in the United States. Actually, that's how it was in the 90s.

“Any person has the option of turning into a dragon. Navalny has no more chance than you or me. He is a fairly sane and adequate person.”

Alfred, thank you for your wonderful Facebook - this is one of my favorite places to visit! How do you see the political future of our Lancelot Navalny? Is it possible to turn him into a dragon? Catherine

Thank you for your appreciation of my humble work. What can I say about Lesha Navalny? I wish him success. He is a courageous and honest guy. And making forecasts is a thankless task. Any person has the option of turning into a dragon. Navalny has this chance, in my opinion, no more than you or me. As far as I know him, he is a fairly sane and adequate person.

Good afternoon Everything is clear with our government and the economic situation in the country. But please tell me, do you think there is any chance to change our future? Or has the point of no return been passed, nothing else awaits us except hell, and Putin and his clique will live forever? Thank you. Elena

Nothing lasts forever. “Everything will pass” was written on King Solomon’s ring. Stalin, and the USSR in general, was so eternal. And he passed too. Putin will also pass. I'm almost 53 years old. During this time we had eight rulers (including Medvedev). Approximately 6.5 years each. Not so much.

- If not Putin, then who? Yuri

Only fair elections can answer this question. Without fair elections with real pre-election struggle and equal access to the media, making forecasts is frivolous and useless. I believe that 140 million people are capable of nominating five or six quite outstanding individuals.

When perestroika began, or rather when there was the most euphoria from changes in the year in 1989, my father-in-law told me that something would really change no earlier than in 2.5 generations. Naturally, it seemed to me then that he was greatly mistaken. And now I think that he made a smaller mistake. What do you think? Dmitriy

It takes 40 years to educate a new people. No one has canceled this biblical figure. So everything will be clear only in 2031. Then we will find out whether there is a new people or not.

What is your attitude towards the legalization of civilian short-barreled firearms in Russia? Forecasts for its legalization? Oleg

An armed people is a threat to power. Hence the forecast: they will not legalize it.

“Honest and open competition, apparently, is generally abhorrent to Putin’s psychotype.”

Alfred Reingoldovich! This year, scarecrows about the shale and tanker “revolutions”, about the refusal of Europe, and subsequently China, from our hydrocarbons, seemed to sound louder than before. Do you share these assessments? Ruslan

I am not ready to give any forecasts on the timing, but even a child can understand that such high energy prices are a brake on economic growth for countries that consume more energy than they produce. Among these countries there are those that have sufficient scientific and technical potential to make a new technological transition and sharply reduce the consumption of traditional energy sources or develop new methods for their extraction from hard-to-extract deposits. These are, first of all, Japan, China and the EU. Thus, it is quite obvious that in the medium term, economic policies based on a firm belief in the inviolability of high hydrocarbon prices are doomed to failure. Moreover, the failure will be deeper, the more atrophied (by the time energy prices fall) that part of the economy, the basis of which is labor, and not the export of raw materials, turns out to be.

The question is about economic priorities. President V.V. Putin, in his annual address, actually proclaimed the militarization of the country, at least for the next 10 years. How feasible is this given the current state of the Russian economy? And then, you once said that “Nobody needs Russia.” Then how relevant is this GDP thesis? Or is this just another bluff necessary for the people? Or another “feeding trough” for the elite? Leonid

In my opinion, Russia does not need excessive militarization. Today's military preparations of the Kremlin are not a desire to increase Russia's defense capability (in reality, Russia currently has no serious threats), but the desire of our leaders to be global players, people whose position shapes the main trend of world politics. Does the country as a whole have such a task or are these just the ambitions of its rulers? Depending on the answer to this question, there will be an answer to the question of whether Russia needs this ambitious rearmament program. In my opinion, no. Russia has too many internal problems in the field of economic reforms, in the field of human potential, in interethnic relations, in demography, in the field of improving the quality of the state, and the problems are so large-scale that trying to look like a “grown boy” on the world stage looks ridiculous. Russia looks like a heart patient in a pre-infarction state who entered the Olympic 100-meter dash. However, our rulers apparently have a different point of view: they believe that the country is in perfect order, that there are no serious problems within the country and that the time has come for a serious transformation of the entire world order. Have their heads been turned by the size of our gold and foreign exchange reserves? In vain. I would remind them of the biblical parable about the seven fat years and seven lean years...

Another thing is that large-scale investments in the defense industry (in theory, the focus of our innovative potential) can become a driver of new economic growth, alternative to growth based on high prices for raw materials. But, in my opinion, this will not happen. Because massive investments in this sector of the economy are only part of the modernization and economic growth program, which will only work if its other parts are also implemented. And above all, a program to intensify competition as the main reason for scientific and technological progress. But Putin’s economic model fears competition like fire. However, fair and open competition, apparently, is generally abhorrent to his psychotype. His ideal is the centralization and personal distribution of any resource according to non-transparent criteria.

“Large-scale investments in the defense industry will only work if competition intensifies. But Putin’s economic model is feared like fire.”

I recently came across an expert opinion: if by the end of the decade we do not create scientific schools, in other words, we do not educate and attract young scientists, then we will not jump on the next technological wave. Alfred Reingoldovich, firstly, is it still possible to create comfortable conditions for young scientists and entrepreneurs? Secondly, do you know of any competitive technological advances of domestic origin? Eugene

Again. I am not a major specialist in innovation economics. I will only repeat what I said above: the source of innovation is competition. Investments play an important, but still secondary role in stimulating scientific and technological progress. In the absence of competition (and this is a fact for most of our industry and, above all, the public sector), massive investments in industry are a waste of money. They will either be stolen or simply lead to an increase in product prices.

Here's a look at how competition has had a beneficial effect on our catering industry. I declare responsibly: now it is quite world-class. In just twenty years, one of the most undeveloped areas of the Soviet economy has turned into an industry that is already setting trends at the global level. By the way, there was no government investment in this industry.

Is there any market in Russia that, in your opinion, will grow in the coming years? A question to try to make money on it: money is really needed. Elena

Moreover, I am not an investment guru. I'm (unfortunately) not Warren Buffett. Where to invest money? Everything depends on the economic strategy that the government will implement and on global trends. If everything goes as it is, there will be stagnation and, accordingly, there will be nowhere to invest.

What to expect from our banking system? Do investors have a chance to get their hard-earned money (over 700 thousand rubles) if their licenses are revoked? Should they fight? Hope

It always makes sense to fight. Never give up. No one has ever achieved anything by giving up. Even if there is one chance in a thousand, statistically it is always more rational to fight than to give up.

We respect you, read with pleasure. As an economist and a Person, please tell me: when do you think our economy will “crash”? Is there a limit to degradation beyond which the collapse of the entire system, the entire state? And when will we reach this limit? Or will the economy continue to slide downwards forever? Thank you. Marina

I don’t know what “clangs” means. But there is no limit to degradation, just as there is no limit to progress. I was recently in Ethiopia, in the city of Axum. There in the 3rd century AD. there was a great civilization - the kingdom of Aksum. Huge obelisks, gorgeous frescoes, and impressive artifacts remain. Now there are skinny goats grazing on picturesque ruins overgrown with grass...

"The most horrific atrocities in history are carried out under the slogan of the struggle for justice"

Yeltsin's privatization was carried out in such a way that the wealth stratification in Russia is one of the highest in the world. Yeltsin's privatization put an end to social justice, national unity and mass support for liberalism. By and large, the results of privatization programmed Putin's rise to power. If the privatization of the 90s were carried out again, what would you change about it? Vadim

I don't agree with the preamble. Should I answer the question? According to the laws of the genre, it’s unlikely. But I'll try. No one knows the real wealth stratification in Russia, since the size of the fortunes of the so-called “sovereign people” is unknown: heads of large state corporations, governors, large police and FSB generals, ministers and deputy prime ministers. Their real income can only be judged indirectly: by the houses they own on the Cote d'Azur, by their planes, by their yachts, by their wives' diamonds, etc. I do not rule out that if we knew the real numbers, our understanding of the top 100 on the Forbes list would change greatly. But (I think you will agree) privatization has nothing to do with it.

Further. Take, however, the current Forbes list. Highlight the people whose fortune arose as a result of privatization or at least on its basis. I assure you, there are no more than 10% of these on this list. So again, privatization actually has nothing to do with it.

If we talk about justice, then private property is generally an unjust thing. By the way, I am most afraid of talking about justice because practice shows that the most monstrous atrocities in the history of mankind are carried out precisely under the slogan of the struggle for justice. There are no universal concepts of justice. One believes that it is fair that his father left him an inheritance of the plant he built with his own hands. And the other one, who works at this plant on the night shift, says no. Therefore, when discussing justice, a person must be aware that this is a very subjective category. One girl is born beautiful, and the other is not. The beautiful one marries an oligarch and becomes rich, while the ugly one crams formulas in order to get an education and feed herself. This is true? No! However, then the oligarch abandons the beauty and she returns to her small town, and the ugly girl becomes a valuable specialist and earns enough not to need anything. It would seem that justice has triumphed? Not at all! After all, what happened to the beauty was not her fault at all! After all, it’s not her fault that she was born beautiful! Which means this is also unfair.

Privatization, in fact, was carried out to create property inequality. Why be surprised that an egalitarian-educated population perceives it as unfair? Privatization was carried out openly, publicly, all announcements about auctions and competitions were published in the press, and journalists were present at the summing up of the results. What questions do you have? Oh, I didn’t know, why didn’t you explain? Did you want to know? If I wanted to, I would have found out. Otherwise, at first he sold his voucher for a bottle of vodka, and only then began to find out what was what.

Privatization did not destroy national unity because it never existed. It existed only in the fevered imagination of Soviet propagandists. And those people who took them at their word, without taking the trouble to find out the real state of affairs in this area.

As for the fact that privatization predetermined the rise of Putin, this is generally nonsense. If it had been the fruit of privatization, then it would never have begun the creeping nationalization that has been going on for almost ten years, since the expropriation of YUKOS and the purchase of Sibneft.

“Privatization was carried out openly, publicly. Oh, I didn’t know why they didn’t explain? But did you want to know? If you wanted to, you would find out. Otherwise, first he sold his voucher for a bottle of vodka, and only then he began to find out what was what.”

Don't you think that, from a moral point of view, there is no difference in enrichment during the privatization wave (including loans-for-shares auctions) and in the corrupt income of officials? That the bureaucracy was corrupted by corruption (that is, business) even then, during mass privatization and loans-for-shares auctions? The essence of our privatization process is the information blockade of ordinary people: taking advantage of their ignorance and under the cover of power, to buy assets from the workforce for pennies by taking a free loan. Is this very different in meanness from the way they “cut” the budget? Our business, unscrupulous in tax and other schemes, essentially stealing budget money, is comparable to our officials engaged in similar work, but “on the other side of the barricades,” isn’t it? Dmitriy

No not like this. There was no information blockade. Everything that those who later became oligarchs knew about privatization was known to everyone. All this was accessible and public information. I'm ready to prove it. There was not a single privatization act that was hidden from the public. Everything was available to the press, everything was published, etc. Even our ill-wishers cannot bring this reproach to us.

So you write: “to buy assets from the workforce for pennies.” How did the workforce end up with these assets? And I will answer you: privatization! Benefits under which plant shares were given to the workforce for free or for pennies. And only then the “dark” worker sold them. For what? This is his decision, no one forced him. But first he got them!

And here I come to the main thing. Privatization was the only case in Russian history when the state did not take away, but gave away. Let it be small, let it be a little, but it gave. And to compare this process with theft from the budget, when they are taken away from the people, is, to say the least, dishonest. But by and large, it’s despicable. This is mere speculation and dishonesty. In general, this is a very philistine position: if people are more successful than me, then they are all thieves. This is an attempt to find an excuse for one’s own laziness and apathy.

Alfred, good afternoon! Don’t you think it’s wrong that during privatization, all the most profitable state property (primarily the fuel and energy complex) was transferred into private hands? Why couldn’t it have been left at least 50% to the state or transferred as collateral? After all, this “airbag” could be very useful to us. Michael

Nothing like this. We wouldn't need it. How the National Welfare Fund is of no use to us: our leaders will still squander it for the so-called (ha ha ha) “brotherly aid”. The money, which was initially intended as a “safety cushion”, to please the geopolitical ambitions of our rulers, with a flick of the wrist, was invested in the securities of a country that, according to its own statements, is actually bankrupt. As for fuel and energy enterprises, whether they are private or state-owned, they pay the same taxes, all their duties are also the same. They will not take their deposits with them anywhere. And what difference does it make whether they are private or public? There are even more private ones and less stealing.

“Of course, Ukraine needs the European Union”

- In what most likely way do you think Euromaidan will end? Thank you. Alexander

I am not an expert on Ukraine and have not been there for a long time. I think the rally activity will gradually turn into an election campaign. I think they will demand early elections. However, they have urgent ones soon - in 2015.

- In your opinion, honestly, does Ukraine need this European Union or is it a one-way road? Veronica

I'm probably stupid, I didn't understand the question. Of course, Ukraine needs the European Union, and this is a one-way road. I don't see a contradiction.

“How will the Russian authorities behave if the Maidan happens in the center of Moscow? They will disperse. This is the mentality of our authorities. They believe that making compromises is humiliating.”

Due to circumstances, I see what is happening in Ukraine with my own eyes. I think that, oddly enough, the main difference from Bolotnaya is the youth who did not want to leave the Maidan even after the troika actually announced its cessation. But on Bolotnaya they bought into peaceful protests - so what? Criminal proceedings. Well, a lesson for the future. Question: how will the Russian government behave if the Maidan happens in the center of Moscow? Novel

It will accelerate. I don’t know how it will end. But they will disperse. This is the mentality of our government. She believes that making compromises is humiliating.

Alfred Reingoldovich, is there any benefit for Russians from integration with Kazakhstan, Belarus, and Armenia? They say that Kyrgyzstan is already planning to join the Customs Union. Or will we all again pay for Putin’s personal imperial ambitions? Boris

Don't know. I think it’s too early to draw conclusions. The results will appear later. Maybe in five years. But from general considerations it is clear that any integration creates a larger market, and this is a positive factor for the economic expansion of producers of goods and services, and therefore for economic growth.

“Russia is dear to me. But talking about it endlessly is vulgar and false.”

- What is your attitude towards the shadow figure of St. Petersburg in the 90s, Roman Tsepov? Ivan

No attitude. He was vaguely familiar, and that’s all.

In your time, was state property stolen the same way as now, or differently? Almost all leaders “gained” something for themselves through their influence on government processes. Did you receive any property for your participation in government? If not, how could this be? Sergey

You, Sergey, apparently think that you poked me very subtly. I have to disappoint you: it's stupid and unoriginal. According to your plan, I should apparently rip my shirt off my chest and shout: “I didn’t steal anything, honestly, I didn’t!” I won't do this. If you find what you stole, it’s all yours. Now go fuck yourself, you idiot.

Alfred Reingoldovich, I have a question about your relationship with the oligarchs of the so-called “first wave”. 1. In one article on the Forbes.ru website it was said that you, being the head of the State Property Committee of the Russian Federation and having friendly connections, contributed to L. Blavatnik acquiring the assets of metallurgical companies. How would you comment on this? 2. On your Facebook page you constantly make fun of M. Prokhorov’s various actions and initiatives, when you don’t seem to notice the strange and not always logical actions of other oligarchs, even when they give an “informational reason”. Did you have any special relationship with Prokhorov, was there anything you didn’t share at the time? Thank you. Ali

1. Nonsense. By the time I met L. Blavatnik, he already owned his metallurgical assets. 2. What should I share with Prokhorov? I have nothing to share with him. Prokhorov went into politics, which means he should be ready for this kind of criticism. Other oligarchs do not go into politics, which means they can avoid the degree of publicity that a politician envisages.

Hello! Do you feel responsible for the current situation with freedom of speech in the country? Now you take a fairly liberal position, but it was with your takeover of NTV that this freedom ceased to exist. Georgiy

I do not think so. I do not consider the spring of 2001 to be the date of the death of freedom of speech in Russia. Let me remind you that Leonid Parfenov’s famous weekly program “Namedni” aired on NTV after that. Just like Savik Shuster’s talk show. In my opinion, the date of death of freedom of speech (sorry for the melodrama) is 2004, when the leaders of NTV (Senkevich) fired Leonid Parfenov. This is if you abstract from liberal clichés and look at the truth.

“All of us who loved and appreciated Yegor Gaidar do not see the opportunity to respond to Illarionov. This is humiliating for us.”

- Why do you swear and speak rudely? For example, on Facebook, in a book-interview about Yegor Gaidar? Eugene

I didn't ask you. If you don't like it, don't read it.

Why don’t you, like your other colleagues, respond loudly and in detail to Illarionov’s accusations against Gaidar? Gregory

Illarionov is waiting for answers from us. But he won't wait for them. At some point in the discussion he descended to the most base and absurd arguments. And thereby deprived himself of the opportunity to argue with us. We, all of us who loved and appreciated Yegor Gaidar and who considered and consider him our comrade, do not see the opportunity to respond to Illarionov. This is humiliating for us.

"India beckons me. Goa, marijuana, ocean, rock and roll... There is something in it. Still an aging hippie... Just kidding"

​ - Alfred, from your various posts it is clear how the feeling of “Germanness” is growing in you, the awareness of belonging to this nation. In this regard, the question is: if we put aside our unfortunate government, do you love Russia? Just as a country, a phenomenon on the globe, a homeland? The question is completely without a “trick”: I myself am half German, and you are older than me, your feelings in this regard are interesting. Thank you. Alexander

You know, in my opinion Dovlatov (just answering the question why he cannot publicly declare his love for the Motherland) said that loving publicly is bestiality. And what does my “Germanness” have to do with it? I am a person brought up in Russian culture. My native Russian language. Of course, Russia is dear to me. But talking about it endlessly is vulgar and false.

- If you were now choosing a country for your whole family to emigrate, what country would it be? Svetlana

Don't know. I spend a long time in Germany. Maybe Germany? Although I am, of course, biased and biased here. I also think about India. India beckons me. Goa, marijuana, ocean, rock and roll... There is something in it. Still an aging hippie... Just kidding.

We are talking about the political situation in Russia with the former Deputy Prime Minister of the Russian Government in the late 90s, now a writer and businessman, Alfred Koch.

We talk about the death of Boris Nemtsov, Chechnya and Ukraine.

The Facebook star, co-author of the books "Gaidar's Revolution: A First-Hand History of the Reforms of the 90s" and "A Box of Vodka" cannot return to Russia from Germany after a criminal case was opened against him for allegedly attempting to smuggle a painting worth 18 thousand rubles

With a political emigrant Alfred Koch Radio Liberty columnist Mikhail Sokolov talked in Munich at the Bayrische Hof Hotel.

Mikhail Sokolov: Today we are talking about the political situation in Russia with former Deputy Prime Minister, writer and businessman Alfred Koch.

I wanted to ask you how you became, by your own free will, not by your own, but in general, an emigrant? We are not talking to you in Moscow, but in Munich.

Alfred Koch: Next question.

Mikhail Sokolov: What is the state of the matter that forced you to be here?

Alfred Koch: Next question.

Mikhail Sokolov: Do you consider yourself a political emigrant?

Alfred Koch: Yes.

Mikhail Sokolov: What do you think are the reasons that the authorities were unhappy with you?

Alfred Koch: And what do you think?

Mikhail Sokolov: I think this is Facebook.

Alfred Koch: And I think so.

Mikhail Sokolov: That is, having one hundred thousand subscribers and an independent opinion is enough to fabricate a criminal case against a person?

Alfred Koch: Are you asking me? Ask those who fabricated it.

Mikhail Sokolov: Are you going to live here until the end of the Putin regime or is there an opportunity to challenge something?

Alfred Koch: What for?

Mikhail Sokolov: So there's absolutely no need? Is there no need to fight in Russian courts?

Alfred Koch: Where did you find the court? Did you see the court there? Nemtsov came running from Israel when the Investigative Committee refused to initiate a criminal case and found no reason. Oh, how great, and I'm back. And this simply meant that it was accepted another solution. What do you want me to wait for, so that the case against me is closed, so that it is also accepted? another solution?

Mikhail Sokolov: Is there such a risk? Boris is gone, he was killed...

Alfred Koch: The day before Nemtsov’s murder, if you were asked: is there a risk that Nemtsov will be killed? What would you say?

Mikhail Sokolov: I would say yes.

Alfred Koch: But I would say no.

Mikhail Sokolov: I told him this so that he would go with security.

Alfred Koch: Everyone told him this. They constantly attacked him, they attacked him with their fists, they splashed ammonia in his face, for this, of course, security was needed. But it will never protect you from murder. Don’t lie, you didn’t believe that he would be killed, you never thought about it, you thought that he needed physical protection from the attack of the “nashi”.

Mikhail Sokolov: He had security, but he didn’t actually use it.

Alfred Koch: That's a different conversation. What if the security helped? There were so many tramplers around him, they didn’t even come up.

Mikhail Sokolov: Or they did, judging by the filming.

Alfred Koch: Of course, they came when they had already shot. Didn't they see it or what? They could very well have detained a person.

Mikhail Sokolov: Previously, politicians of this level had not been killed in the middle of Moscow. This means that violence has changed, this means that violence has been legitimized, has it become Kremlin policy or not?

Alfred Koch: It has long been Kremlin policy. Isn't it the same thing when people are killed in Eastern Ukraine? The same people, with the same skin, with the same meat, with warm blood, die because of some geopolitical interests. Violence has long been commonplace for the Kremlin.

Mikhail Sokolov: Did Boris also die because of geopolitical interests?

Alfred Koch: This is the Kremlin situation, I wanted to give a joke, to show who’s boss.

Mikhail Sokolov: In just a few days, they have had so many versions and ratings that it is quite difficult to understand what they want.

Alfred Koch: They want to find the version that will most satisfy the electorate. Today I wrote on Facebook that the investigation should be transferred from the Investigative Committee to Levada, so that it would conduct a public opinion poll and ask: which version do you want? The one that wins will be offered.

Mikhail Sokolov: Which of the proposed ones can win, in your opinion?

Alfred Koch: It would be good about the Chechens if they had an evidence base, but their evidence base is crumbling. One, it turns out, was in the bar at that time, the other completely refused, did not give any confessions, and so on.

The people would be happy to take the Chechen version, of course: “The Caucasian animals took and killed our Borya.” It was possible to work on something with customers. Religious fanaticism is not very good in relation to Bor.

Mikhail Sokolov: It doesn’t work with religious fanaticism, because they started monitoring before Charlie Hebdo happened.

Alfred Koch: There, the characters who were chosen are unlikely to be able to read fluently; they could not get acquainted with Boris’s position, unless someone told them.

Mikhail Sokolov: Who told?

Alfred Koch: The customer, of course.

Mikhail Sokolov: Which do you think is more likely?

Alfred Koch: Don't know. Judging by how it happened, where it happened, and so on, it seems to me that it could not have happened without our special services. Our intelligence services are disciplined enough to make voluntaristic decisions without leadership.

I’m not such a big expert on contract killings that I can tell you in detail how it happened, who the customer was, and so on. But I say again: I am convinced that without the participation of our special services this could not have been accomplished. A few months before, on another bridge, on the other side of the Kremlin, some oppositionists wanted to unfurl a poster, after 10 seconds they were turned away and taken to the police station. And then for 11 minutes only the police drove up to the crime scene. Although there are FSE officers who tramp around Red Square all day long, it’s a two-minute walk.

Mikhail Sokolov: You caught the moment when Nemtsov’s career took off, when it seemed that Boris could lay claim to the highest posts in the state. In your opinion, why didn’t it work out then, what prevented it?

Alfred Koch: Gusinsky and Berezovsky decided that this was not their candidate, started a PR campaign against him, and the ratings went down.

Mikhail Sokolov: Just two people?

Alfred Koch: Certainly. Yes, Yeltsin was significantly dependent on them, as were all his immediate circle.

Mikhail Sokolov: In general, Russia is an interesting country, where two people can kill a rating, reputation, anything, or at least could.

Alfred Koch: This was the structure of the media at that time. This structure was created by Yeltsin personally, bypassing the government. For some reason she suited him. Why - now no one will answer. It did not suit anyone except Yeltsin and, accordingly, those people who created this structure. They never really bothered him, they killed the government, those same “young reformers.” More than 15 years have already passed; that was 18 years ago.

Mikhail Sokolov: They learn from mistakes.

Alfred Koch: Who should study? As soon as we were allowed to gain leverage, we would apply our experience. Now what to study, for what, for what purpose?

Mikhail Sokolov: New generations will come.

Alfred Koch: So let them study. They won’t hear us anyway, and our experience will be of no use to them. I once derived a formula that it only seems that a smart person learns from other people’s mistakes, and a fool from his own: a smart person learns from his own mistakes, but a fool doesn’t learn at all. And no one learns from other people's mistakes. I don’t yet know a single person who has learned from other people’s mistakes.

Mikhail Sokolov: There are talented politicians. The same Putin learns from mistakes, unfortunately.

Alfred Koch: Whose?

Mikhail Sokolov: He doesn’t repeat these mistakes to those who came before him, that’s why he holds on.

Alfred Koch: Building a banal banana dictatorship also requires a lot of intelligence. Shooting political rivals, silencing them or buying them - that's what politics is all about. Where can I go wrong? Make a mistake once, send someone, they will shoot your “mistake”.

The world has already moved on, we are all spinning in this wheel of a hundred years ago. Again, in the same paradigm - territorial conquests, the sacred significance of certain territories, enlightenment. Have you noticed that all the rhetoric of Russian politics, Russian mentality revolves not around the people, but around the territories. If a stationary normal state, not to mention Asian or European, when choosing between territory and people, always chooses the people, is ready to sacrifice territories for the people, the Russian state is ready to sacrifice the people for the sake of territories.

Mikhail Sokolov: Do you have an explanation - why? What is happening to the Russian people that they are easily led to do exactly this?

Alfred Koch: The national consensus is that our country's greatest asset is not its people, but its land. And the people agree with this. Measuring everyone by themselves, like all people, they believe that they want to conquer us not because we have extremely talented people who they want to force to work for them, but they want to conquer our mineral resources, being aware of the modesty of their abilities.

Mikhail Sokolov: I would object. Still, 1991 was a little different, that same imperial state collapsed, no one began to fight for it. So, in certain circumstances, the people of Russia are capable of behaving differently than they do now?

Alfred Koch: There was no strength, no idea. The Soviet Union has exhausted itself. Then Russia believed that the most important mineral resources remained with it anyway. And the only source of aggression could only be Russian. Georgia would not have gone to war with Latvia or Ukraine. Just like in Yugoslavia, when Yugoslavia collapsed, the only source of expansion was Serbia.

Is there any alternative agenda for Russia other than the one that Putin has imposed on it today? I’m not talking about those 50 thousand who came to the funeral rally, they definitely have an alternative agenda, but for Nizhny Tagil, which makes up 84% of the nation, what is the alternative agenda for it? Go to the shops and work? What is their inspirational idea that will make their life feel meaningful? Family, American dream? What? What to offer them as an alternative agenda? Now they have been offered: we are a separate civilization, the “Russian World”, “Jewish Bandera”, NATO is around us, we must unite around the Leninist Central Committee, we are the coolest, everyone is afraid of us and is beginning to respect us again.

Mikhail Sokolov: And we beat the “fascists” in Ukraine?

Alfred Koch: We beat the “fascists” in Ukraine, we rise from our knees. This is the agenda that Putin proposed to them. And this is the “fifth column” that is corrupting us from the inside.

What can we offer as an alternative, what idea should touch the soul of a Russian? Digging potatoes, doing renovations in the apartment, fixing the garbage chute?

Mikhail Sokolov: Should there be such an idea? Is there such an idea here in the West?

Alfred Koch: Here in the West there is no idea, but no alternative is offered. When Adolf Aloizovich appeared here and offered an alternative, they all ran ahead of him, lifting up their pants.

It’s just that no one is offering any ideas other than renovating the apartment. And if they offer it, I don’t rule out that everyone will run.

Mikhail Sokolov: Not all.

Alfred Koch: So not everyone ran away with us.

Mikhail Sokolov: Why is it bad to organize life in Russia like here, like in Germany?

Alfred Koch: It's boring, uninteresting, I need to work.

Running around the Donbass with a Kalashnikov is much more fun, and there is an element of adventure in it. Or not even run, but empathize with those who run, consider yourself a part of this team, this idea, this process.

Mikhail Sokolov: Is Putin their leader?

Alfred Koch: And Putin is their leader. The president carries out the will of the people. Another thing is that he shapes it to a large extent, but nevertheless, this will is quite clearly articulated, he carries it out. The problem is not Putin.

Mikhail Sokolov: Not at all in Putin? You yourself said that he formulates it, articulates it.

Alfred Koch: If he had formulated any idea that was completely opposite, they simply would not have accepted it. After all, Putin formulated the modernization agenda until 2004; it did not find a response. When he abandoned the modernization agenda and simply began stupidly spending petrodollars, everyone immediately began to love him.

Mikhail Sokolov: Is Russia's current state likely to continue?

Alfred Koch: The most adequate to the people's aspirations. This is exactly what he wants.

Mikhail Sokolov: You can clarify then: what do the Russian people want?

Alfred Koch: Expansion and victories, unity and greatness of the state, even at the cost of their own poverty. The fact remains that what I called is what the people want, they want expansion, victories, fear around them, admiration for themselves.

Mikhail Sokolov: What about 1991, what about Gaidar, the reforms, where did it all come from?

Alfred Koch: Temporary clouding, weakness, sorry. Now we have gathered our strength again and are again the same as before.

Mikhail Sokolov: So it turns out that it was a randomly drawn card that played?

Alfred Koch: Yes, just like the Khrushchev thaw, when all sorts of wimps came out, poetry was read in the streets.

Mikhail Sokolov: But Nemtsov thought differently, for example. If he believed, as you do, that everything is hopeless, that people don’t need to be treated, he probably would have gone into business, dropped everything and left.

Alfred Koch: And for some time now Nemtsov has become an idol for us, which cannot be objected to? What, he proved he was right with his death? He had a choice, I respected him. I helped him as best I could, including money. But this does not mean at all that I agreed that something can be done, something can be changed.

Mikhail Sokolov: Did you tell him that nothing could change?

Alfred Koch: A hundred times. Moreover, he tried to do business in the mid-2000s; he went into business and worked at the Neftyanoy concern.

Mikhail Sokolov: I worked and returned to politics. So I couldn’t live without it.

Alfred Koch: This is his personal choice. Apparently, there is no less personal here than public. He was drawn to lead, to object, to protest.

Mikhail Sokolov: Did you tell him that it was pointless?

Alfred Koch: I told him it was pointless. I will still say that this is pointless at this stage.

Mikhail Sokolov: That is, those who go to rallies, who went to this march, need to come to terms with reality and either leave or remain silent?

Alfred Koch: Don't be silent, who won't give it to you? Do I mind? Speak. I speak and you speak. I don’t understand what you are proposing - go into the embrasure and get a bullet in the forehead for this, and not in the back?

Mikhail Sokolov: In the end, remember, there were elections in 2003, you were the chief of staff of the Union of Right Forces there.

Alfred Koch: Then it seemed that there was still some play. Now I would never become the chief of staff of a party that obviously does not get into the Duma.

Mikhail Sokolov: And then it was obvious that it did not pass into the Duma?

Alfred Koch: Until we opposed the arrest of Khodorkovsky, we had a chance. After we supported Khodorkovsky, we didn't have a chance.

Mikhail Sokolov: There was no chance because of propaganda or because of falsifications?

Alfred Koch: There was no chance due to the fact that our entire election campaign was ruined, we were simply turned off from the TV and that’s it, we were completely absent from the air for the last month. Accordingly, we wasted the most important month.

Mikhail Sokolov: Were you in favor of not supporting Khodorkovsky?

Alfred Koch: No, I wasn't for it.

Mikhail Sokolov: But there were other people who were in favor.

Alfred Koch: No, we were aware of it. When we gathered at headquarters, and Nemtsov was there, and Khakamada, and Chubais were all sitting there, we absolutely clearly understood that if we now come out in support of Khodorkovsky, our chances are zero.

Mikhail Sokolov: But it was impossible not to speak, to remain silent?

Alfred Koch: It’s probably possible, but we haven’t considered such an alternative.

By the way, Yavlinsky did not support, avoided, and did not speak out on this topic. True, he didn’t get into the Duma either, but he scored a little more.

Mikhail Sokolov: He received a consoling word from Putin. He congratulated him on his victory, but there was no victory.

Alfred Koch: Since then he has turned into his puppet, who continues to deal with the only task - to split the democratic movement, he has always done only this.

Mikhail Sokolov: But didn’t this mistake, which alienated people from those called the democratic movement, happen a little earlier? “The army is being reborn in Chechnya” - this was also said on behalf of the Union of Right Forces.

Alfred Koch: So, do you have any problems with this phrase? The army is being revived in Chechnya, so what? This is true. There was the first Chechen war, it was not carried out brilliantly by our army. The army, especially the officers, were demoralized. Then the second war began, which proceeded much more successfully. The army felt that the authorities would not betray it, the army felt support from the authorities, that there would be no double-dealing: shoot today, stop tomorrow, let the Chechens hide, and so on. Do you remember how the first Chechen war went - back and forth, back and forth, shoot - stop, shoot - stop. Naturally, our generals straightened their shoulders, they really felt that the authorities supported them, that their cause was just, that they were not murderers or occupiers, as domestic television called them in the first Chechen war. Indeed, the army has been reborn in Chechnya. What's the problem? They latched on to this phrase from Chubais!

Mikhail Sokolov: But this was a phrase of direct support for Vladimir Putin, like all the others.

Alfred Koch: And what? And I voted for him. In 1999, I thought he was a good candidate.

Mikhail Sokolov: Why did you think this was a good candidate?

Alfred Koch: Because I knew him, I worked with him in St. Petersburg. He seemed to me to be a progressive, young, energetic student of Sobchak, and that is exactly how he always seemed to me. Another thing is that he later underwent perturbation; at first there were no questions.

And the first thing he started was to build Berezovsky and Gusinsky, which absolutely coincided with my ideas about what needed to be done. We just talked to you about how this was an absolutely wrong system, he began to change this system. Another story is what he changed it to. But the one that Yeltsin built needed to be changed. It later became clear what he had built from it, but at the time he changed it, it was unclear. Replacing Berezovsky with Konstantin Ernst looked completely progressive and normal.

Mikhail Sokolov: With "Old songs about the main thing"?

Alfred Koch: For example. Named after Leonid Parfenov. Do you also have complaints against Leonid Parfenov?

Mikhail Sokolov: I have complaints against everyone who brought back Soviet propaganda, and this includes Ernst and others, less so Parfyonov.

Alfred Koch: Nonsense.

Mikhail Sokolov: This is how the new Putin, which you don’t like, was promoted. Is not it so?

Alfred Koch: No I do not think so.

Mikhail Sokolov: So the question is precisely this: you say that Putin was one person to whom there were no questions, a student of Sobchak and so on, what happened to him?

Alfred Koch: Power spoiled him.

Mikhail Sokolov: How quickly did she ruin it?

Alfred Koch: As soon as the extra money appeared, she ruined it.

Mikhail Sokolov: May I ask, until what point did Putin suit you?

Alfred Koch: I think somewhere in the first couple of years of his reign. Frankly speaking, personal things aside, I think until the end of the first term. Until the first Duma, which was elected in 1999, exhausted its mandate, everything was fine. There was an excellent budget committee with Yegor Gaidar, there was a large SPS faction with Boris Nemtsov, there was a government with fairly sane people headed by Mikhail Kasyanov. Alexander Voloshin was there, for whom I have a lot of questions, but nevertheless, I’m most likely for him, and they did a lot.

Mikhail Sokolov: That is, the turning point was the arrest of Khodorkovsky?

Alfred Koch: I think yes.

Mikhail Sokolov: Why did it happen?

Alfred Koch: It's starting. Am I some kind of Kremlin scientist? I'm not a Kremlin expert. Why did it happen? Sechin probably wanted money, he probably wanted to steal YUKOS.

Mikhail Sokolov: Why did you have to be removed from NTV?

Alfred Koch: I left myself. I wrote a statement and left, they even shouted for me to come back. I just understood where it was all going and said: this is without me, please.

Mikhail Sokolov: “This” – what is this?

Alfred Koch: They wanted to build me. Miller kept me in the waiting room for 6 hours and so on. I understood where this was going.

Mikhail Sokolov: Once again – “build”. What did they want from you?

Alfred Koch: Submission, my statements that I would carry out any order of the party, but I did not want to make such statements.

Mikhail Sokolov: Were these questions on specific topics beforehand?

Alfred Koch: They drive him into a stall and show him to his place. I immediately said: “Here is my statement, guys, no complaints, without me.”

Mikhail Sokolov: Were they happy that you left?

Alfred Koch: I don’t know, I didn’t communicate with them after that.

Mikhail Sokolov: All these years?

Alfred Koch: Didn't communicate with any of them.

Mikhail Sokolov: Neither from Gazprom, nor from the administration?

Alfred Koch: Neither from Gazprom, nor from the administration.

Mikhail Sokolov: Even during the election campaign?

Alfred Koch: Even during the election campaign. I talked with Voloshin and that’s it. Voloshin always believed that I did something stupid, that I should have stayed, although he himself later resigned.

Mikhail Sokolov: Everyone you praise has resigned.

Alfred Koch: Not all. Gref remained, albeit not as Minister of Economy, but still close.

Mikhail Sokolov: Are those who remain able to influence the adoption of at least economic decisions now?

Alfred Koch: I don't know, it's hard for me to judge. Judging by what is happening with the ruble, judging by what is happening with the budget, I think that their potential is very limited, if it exists at all.

Mikhail Sokolov: So geopolitics has eclipsed everything?

Alfred Koch: If Siluanov speaks and says that there will be a sequestration of the budget, except for defense items, the state’s priorities are set.

Mikhail Sokolov: How do you perceive what is happening now in Ukraine? Has the war stopped for some time or will it all flare up again and again?

Alfred Koch: It's hard to judge. I think that if the status quo that has developed now remains, then everything may remain as it is now. If the Americans start supplying weapons to the Ukrainians, then I think this balance will be destroyed in one direction or the other. Either Putin will begin direct aggression, or the Ukrainians will begin to defeat the separatists. But, having received weapons, Ukraine will not remain in the status quo that exists now, which is clearly unprofitable for it from the point of view of its idea of ​​​​benefit. On the contrary, I have always been a supporter of recognizing all separatists as sovereign states, shaking hands and leaving.

Mikhail Sokolov: In Russia?

Alfred Koch: Anyway. It doesn't matter, Russia, Banana Republic, Uruguay, Sudan. If people want to secede and build their own state, the flag is in your hands, go ahead and build. If Dudayev had been released at one time, would that have made those same Russians feel bad? How much money would be saved, how many people would be saved.

Mikhail Sokolov: But it’s probably worth asking them anyway.

Alfred Koch: Whom?

Mikhail Sokolov: This means those who live in Crimea or Donbass, whether they really want to secede somewhere or whether they wanted to secede.

Alfred Koch: The Crimeans did not want to secede anywhere, they wanted to go to Russia, they did not want to be independent. They wanted Russian pensions, as I understand it.

Mikhail Sokolov: Referendum, do you remember what it was about? The referendum was precisely about secession, not joining Russia.

Alfred Koch: I absolutely don’t care who owns Crimea - for me it is a kind of abstraction, a sacred place in the good sense of the word. Therefore, I don’t care whether the Crimeans want it or not. If they don't want to, let them rebel. As far as I understand, they are happy with everything, at least the vast majority of Crimeans.

Mikhail Sokolov: Are the residents of Donbass also happy with everything?

Alfred Koch: I don't know. I’m not thinking now about the residents of Donbass, I’m now thinking about the residents of Kyiv, Lvov, Kharkov, Odessa. Do they need this so that all these...brothers become citizens of their state?

Mikhail Sokolov: As long as they are citizens of their state.

Alfred Koch: De facto, it’s been gone for almost a year now. When de facto Dudayev's Ichkeria was an independent state for a certain amount of time, and now we got them all back. Do they look like Russian citizens? Or are we not touching on this topic?

Mikhail Sokolov: There is an almost independent Chechen Republic under Ramzan Kadyrov – that’s a fact.

Alfred Koch: Which in fact is a kind of emanation of Dudayev’s Ichkeria, only more cunningly arranged, which formally says: yes, we are part of Russia, Russia is our state, hurray. Actually, these ritual phrases were also required from Dudayev, he simply did not want to utter them. So they, in principle, got what Maskhadov and Dudayev wanted: an economic union with Russia, a single currency and full sovereignty and independence.

Mikhail Sokolov: And its own foreign policy.

Alfred Koch: Everything is yours. This is exactly what Maskhadov wanted: an economic union with Russia, a single space, visa-free entry and exit, a single currency, and so on. And also assistance for the restoration of the national economy, destroyed by the Russian army. They received all this in exchange for virtual recognition of being part of the Russian Federation.

Mikhail Sokolov: In your opinion, is this bad for Russia and the Russian people?

Alfred Koch: Undoubtedly.

Mikhail Sokolov: Arguments?

Alfred Koch: People have actually received immunity from Russian criminal legislation and do what they want on Russian territory, no one tells them to do so. And if they have any problems, then they all go to Chechnya, and go find them there, no one will give them to you. Russian law enforcement agencies have no right to interfere there.

Mikhail Sokolov: In some sense, do you consider the version about the participation of Chechens in the murder of Boris Nemtsov to be realistic?

Alfred Koch: I think that if they participated, it was as performers, not as customers. The Chechens did not have any reasons of their own to kill Nemtsov.

Mikhail Sokolov: I'm just trying to understand the phrase: "they do what they want" and so on.

Alfred Koch: It’s no secret that Chechens are killing their rivals on the streets of Moscow; intra-Chechen showdowns have been transferred to Moscow streets. The murder of the Yamadayevs, the murder of Baysarov, and so on. I’m not discovering some kind of America.

Mikhail Sokolov: If we return to Ukraine, would you advise them to give up Crimea, give up that part of Donbass that is controlled by the rebels?

Alfred Koch: Recognize their sovereignty.

Putin believes that the way he has built relations with Chechnya is a great positive. But I don’t think so. I believe that this is a pure Potemkin village and de facto we have a sovereign state that is sucking money from Russia for unknown reasons. Only for pronouncing ritual phrases. We have a personal union between Kadyrov and Putin; Chechnya does not carry out any integration into Russian institutions.

Personal union is easily destroyed, in the end, even purely physically, these people still will not live forever. When they die, who will be the new guarantor of personal union? And then, why do we need this personal union? I can’t go to this Chechnya as a citizen of Russia, you can’t, and we have nothing to do there. And they are pouring in to us in Moscow and have spread all over Russia. Some kind of one way road.

We are creating a bad example of this kind of relationship with the subject of the federation. What we all feared happened: federal subjects of two kinds appeared. There is some Ulyanovsk region, and there is Chechnya, go ahead and compare them in terms of the degree of influence.

Mikhail Sokolov: There is Crimea, which also actually pursues its own policy.

Alfred Koch: That's why I don't like all this. Putin likes it - good, but I don’t like it.

I would not advise Ukrainians to build such relations with Donbass, I would stupidly suggest recognizing their sovereignty and that’s all. “If you want, go to Russia, wherever you want, we are not interested in you. We will build a Western society, integrate into Europe, we have values, human rights, tolerance, all sorts of freedoms, rallies, processions. And you have greatness, expansion, they are afraid and respect. You and I are not on the same path."

Mikhail Sokolov: As far as I remember, you talked with Kakha Bendukidze, who died untimely, also your friend, tell me how he assessed what was happening in Ukraine, meaning the economy and everything that the authorities are doing there, their capacity and so on?

Alfred Koch: He believed that they were completely incompetent, that default was inevitable and even desirable.

Mikhail Sokolov: How could default be desirable?

Alfred Koch: Clear the debts, start with a clean slate, you can build institutions anew, because everything there is destroyed. First of all, we need to build the state, state institutions, they are absolutely rotten. The Soviet state apparatus was not as affected by corruption as the current Ukrainian one. First of all, there is the problem of corruption.

Mikhail Sokolov: In Russia there is also a problem of corruption.

Alfred Koch: It is now. The state apparatus that we inherited from the Soviet Union was not as riddled with corruption as the current Ukrainian one, which is monstrously ineffective. This can be seen even in the actions of the army. Our Russian army is much more effective than the Ukrainian one, even with the same group size. Let's start with the fact that the Ukrainians sold their entire army in 20 years.

Mikhail Sokolov: There was no one to fight with.

Alfred Koch: We also had no one to fight with, but they didn’t sell it, it still remained somehow, at the very least.

Mikhail Sokolov: Russia fought in Chechnya, fought in Georgia, so it had experience.

Alfred Koch: And these are generally a complete guard. They sold all their fighter planes, they don’t even have anything to fly now.

Mikhail Sokolov: They will create a new army from scratch.

Alfred Koch: And what kind of shishi? This is a very expensive pleasure, don’t you know? What they have left from the Soviet Union is a fairly good army, quite a lot of weapons, officers, and so on. Everything was sold, everything was stolen to the last nail.

Mikhail Sokolov: Why then did their opponents not reach Kyiv, they promised?

Alfred Koch: The West doesn't give it.

Mikhail Sokolov: The West does not stand at the front with machine guns.

Alfred Koch: But nonetheless.

Mikhail Sokolov: Some people are fighting.

Alfred Koch: The West is quite effective in applying sanctions against Russia. I think that if the West had turned a blind eye to this, they would have been in Kyiv long ago. It was not the Ukrainian army that stopped Russian expansion, but Merkel and Hollande who flew to Moscow.

Mikhail Sokolov: Do you believe that Merkel and Hollande could have stopped Putin if the Ukrainians had not resisted?

Alfred Koch: Yes, sure. I think that the key factor that stopped Putin was, of course, pressure from the West, and not the resistance of the Ukrainian army, which for a whole month refused to acknowledge the obvious fact that they have half their army surrounded in Debaltsevo.

Mikhail Sokolov: Are sanctions against Russia effective enough?

Alfred Koch: In some ways yes, in others no. It seems to me that the fact that Russia is de facto disconnected from financial markets has been done quite effectively. Moreover, it is formally prohibited to lend to a very limited list of state-owned companies, and de facto Russia is completely disconnected from Western capital markets, while others are not. It seemed to us that there was a capital market in the East, in Asia, but it turns out there is none. All the money is there – Europe, America.

A certain status quo has emerged: there is a certain set of sanctions, there is Russia’s current position towards Ukraine. In Donbass, it is not clear that if the balance is shaken, then, accordingly, either sanctions will be tightened or something else. Everyone is now frozen in a difficult position and getting used to some new situation. If they find it stable enough, then this could last for a very long time, like some Turkish Cyprus or something else, for decades.

Russia did not undertake any obligations regarding Donbass. Crimea is clear, de facto its territory, the people are Russian citizens, passports, and so on. And there are no obligations regarding Donbass. If you have money, we give, if you don’t have money, we don’t give.

Mikhail Sokolov: Does your business not depend on what is happening in Russia?

Alfred Koch: No way.

Mikhail Sokolov: Because he is not in Russia.

Alfred Koch: Because he is not in Russia, of course. And I did this long before Ukraine and Putin’s exercises, realizing that this must begin sooner or later.

Mikhail Sokolov: You may ask - when?

Alfred Koch: Starting from 2005-6, I gradually built a business here.

Mikhail Sokolov: This was at a time when everyone was just making money from high oil, and you were leaving?

Alfred Koch: And I left.

Mikhail Sokolov: What was the reason anyway?

Alfred Koch: Lack of faith that we can build a normal free state, a free society. After Putin’s second term, everything became more or less clear, especially after this multi-move with the castling. In 2012, Putin returned to build a completely different state.

Mikhail Sokolov: And we see him.

Alfred Koch: At first I was simply building some kind of alternative site, with no intention of leaving Russia, and then I realized that this alternative site was becoming the main one. In Russia, I have nothing to do with my long tongue. There the finest hour of people without language has now arrived.

Mikhail Sokolov: Many, for example, in 2011-12, when people took to the streets, hoped that this trend could be broken.

Alfred Koch: I also came out with everyone in 2011 and 2012.

Mikhail Sokolov: Could this trend be broken – Putin’s return with the idea of ​​a new state?

Alfred Koch: Then it seemed that yes, now in retrospect I look and think no.

Mikhail Sokolov: Is this due to the fact that something was wrong in these actions or was it useless?

Alfred Koch: I'll say a platitude. There are periods when people come into some kind of movement, when their passionarity rises, and they are capable of certain actions. In particular, this was the case in 1991, and this was probably the case in 1917. And at these moments, of course, the task of real patriots, if you can call them that, those who truly love their people, Russia, is to be with the people, to invest some positive goals, to lead somewhere, to offer some positive program. Sometimes this succeeds, sometimes it fails, but nevertheless, this is the duty of any thinking patriot.

There are periods when people are asleep, there are periods when people are obsessed with some idiotic idea and are in a semi-hysterical state of patriotic frenzy. At this moment there is no point in talking to these people about anything, like talking to a drunk. What to talk to him, you need to wait until he sleeps off, then you tell him what he did yesterday. And now, why bother trying to persuade him, the idiot, he got drunk and is rowdy.

Mikhail Sokolov: So they give him more.

Alfred Koch: He will get drunk and fall anyway, sooner or later, but it cannot be stopped. Therefore, in these cases, the task is to preserve yourself, hold out as long as possible, wait until sobering up begins, you can talk: “Do you now understand what you did yesterday? Should I tell you? This, this, this. He kicked his mother out into the street, destroyed furniture, children intimidated, poured wine on the walls, and, having opened the window, threw the coffee set straight down. Ashamed? Well done, he drank himself to hell. He got into a fight with his neighbor..."

Mikhail Sokolov: Did you finish your drink in Crimea?

Alfred Koch: We've drunk ourselves to hell, that's all.

Mikhail Sokolov: And to Donbass.

Alfred Koch: And to Donbass...
You ask: “Why aren’t you where Nemtsov is?” Nemtsov is already at the Troekurovsky cemetery. Do you want me there?

Mikhail Sokolov: I? No.

Alfred Koch: Me neither. You can’t even imagine how much I don’t want to, maybe it seems like cowardice. I really have no desire at all, I’ll be of less use there.

And Lenin, by the way, is the great pragmatist of all times and peoples, where was he at the moment when the people were sleeping? I climbed the mountains nearby, Geneva, Zurich, by the way, and I’ve been here in Munich.

Mikhail Sokolov: He not only climbed mountains...

Alfred Koch: So we are not only in the mountains, we also pee, realize something, hold some meetings, call each other, form some alternative agendas, realize how to behave. We wait.

The wave will come. Khodorkovsky says correctly - we must wait, take our time, life is long.

Mikhail Sokolov: Did the authorities have motives to kill Boris Nemtsov?

Alfred Koch: Yes, I've talked about this many times. Of course there were, there were tons of them. One of the most prominent oppositionists, he is a joke to everyone both within his team and for the opposition.

Boris, he was a key figure, he was a communicator, he connected the incompatible. A huge number of oppositionists personally at odds with each other communicated through Boris, because he was quite a compromise, a friendly guy who found some kind of intonation of communication with everyone. Now this nail has been torn out of the structure and it has all crumbled down. A very smart subtle move.

You are absolutely right, he was going to go to the Duma, and he was essentially one of the few, if not the only one, who did not need to collect signatures for this, and collecting signatures, as you know, is the most important filter for weeding out the opposition. He could become a State Duma deputy, where he could go next with the potential of the State Duma, only God knows. Moreover, the economic situation is deteriorating; there are a huge number of arguments to criticize the Kremlin. It is much more effective to do this from the State Duma rostrum. Even if he was from the rostrum of the Yaroslavl Duma, he developed such vigorous activity. You can imagine that he will start from the rostrum of the State Duma. Investigations into corruption alone, if he had teamed up with Navalny in this regard, would have had a big resonance with public opinion. I gave you at least five reasons why he was dangerous.

Alfred Koch: Yes. Let’s be honest, he is actually alone, maybe with Kasparov, maybe not, I don’t know, he pushed through the first sanctions in the form of the “Magnitsky list” even before Crimea. Is this not enough to consider him a serious enemy?

There is no mystery in his murder. Because his opponents have chicken brains, they are idiots, and they are dirty animals.

They do not accept any other arguments, because they believe that it is right to take and kill, so that it would be discouraging: “What a great fellow I am, I took and killed!”

Mikhail Sokolov: If they are as stupid as you say, why do they always beat the smart ones?

Alfred Koch: Where did they win, did they at least hold one election so that there was at least equal access to the media and to campaigning?

Mikhail Sokolov: They hold power.

Alfred Koch: That's a different conversation. But whether they win or not is not a fact. They maintain power through blunt force.

Mikhail Sokolov: Will they be in power forever?

Alfred Koch: That's what you said.

Mikhail Sokolov: I said, do you agree or not?

Alfred Koch: Don't know. The Soviet Union had a rifle, but the people did not have one, the Soviet Union died anyway.

Mikhail Sokolov: Does this make you optimistic?

Alfred Koch: No, at least it makes me think that it turns out that the rifle in some cases stops firing.

Mikhail Sokolov: When does the price of oil fall?

Alfred Koch: When the soldier who holds her stops getting paid, and when he stops getting paid, he starts thinking. And when he starts to think: why am I going to shoot, why on earth?

Mikhail Sokolov: Could it happen with the current government that it will not have money to pay the security forces?

Alfred Koch: Certainly. Strategically, Putin still lost. Because, by betting on hydrocarbons, he entered into competition with scientific and technological progress. And those who compete with progress always lose; no one has ever won a competition against progress.

Will there be enough for our generation? Maybe it’s enough, maybe it’s not enough, progress is happening at a rapid pace. You say how long the Putin regime will last, I say that as long as he has petrodollars. Petrodollars are a finite thing; progress will still remove from the energy balance the amount of hydrocarbons that is currently present in it. There is still alternative energy, there is finally controlled thermonuclear fusion, which has been talked about for 50 years.

Sooner or later all this will be realized. We will get an infinite amount of energy much cheaper, I am sure of it. Humanity works hard on this, and when humanity sets itself a task, it always solves it.

For example, I can say that alternative energy now accounts for 20% of Germany’s energy balance. It already generates more electricity from alternative sources than from Russian gas. In the next 5 years, it will completely abandon Russian gas. Here are the historical scales. This, by the way, is the average figure for Europe, give or take. Within 5-7 years, Europe will move away from consuming Russian gas, and there are no alternative consumers of Russian gas to Europe.

Mikhail Sokolov: They are relying on China.

Alfred Koch: Do you know how much Russian gas Europe consumes? Five times more than China. Russian gas has no alternative to Europe. And now new gas deposits have been discovered in Cyprus, Israel, Egypt, huge deposits, and they will all go to Europe.

Mikhail Sokolov: So, will the situation of 1985 repeat itself?

Alfred Koch: I think it will be a drawn out situation. Now, by the way, while we are chatting, oil has again fallen by 10% over the past week. They say that by summer it will be 40 dollars. I don't know, I'm a bad forecaster, quite possibly. Because all oil storage facilities are overfilled, more oil is still produced than consumed. By the way, in the States, despite the fact that wells are being closed, production volumes are growing in old fields.

Vladimir Vladimirovich needs to re-modernize the army in order to support his geopolitical ambitions, so that ambitions correspond to ammunition or, conversely, ammunition to ambitions. And if the West, for example, is still discussing whether it needs to help Ukraine, and whether Ukraine is worth complications with Russia, and so on, the modernization of the Russian army, taking into account the fact that Russia recently withdrew from the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe, it seems to me that this is a clear signal of a threat to Europe and NATO as a whole. Therefore, I think that, at least for these reasons alone, they will try to complicate the economic situation in Russia. They do not need a modernized army in the hands of a political adventurer.

If Russia had a balanced democracy of the Western type, for God's sake, modernize your army, it is quite obvious that it will be aimed only at positive goals. In the case of Vladimir Vladimirovich, it cannot be said that he is the legitimate president of all Russians, no matter how hard he tries to present himself in this way.