Russian politician: Putin is now ashamed of the whole world

From 2011 to 2016, Gudkov was a deputy in the Russian Duma of the True Russia party. He is one of the four MPs who did not vote for the annexation of Crimea to Russia. In addition, he was one of the organizers of the 2011-2012 protest rallies.

It is probably not worth saying that he was expelled from “just Russia”.

In 2016, D. Gudkov tried to enter the Duma again, but did not get enough votes. Until then, he tried to create the political “Party of Change” that he actually led. However, the government also buried this project: the party was not allowed to legalize it.

Dozens of civic initiatives are associated with Gudkov’s name: support for independent media, anti-corruption investigation, support for independent politicians. On the day of the verdict against A. Navalns, D. Gudkov tried to go to court, but all accesses and entrances were blindly blocked.

– What can you say about the sentence to Alexei Navaln?

– The first thing I experienced was an anger that I had not felt in a long time. They spat in our faces so demonstratively that it only causes anger. We are told that Mr. Navaln is a foreign agent and a person hired by the West with the task of destroying Russia, and he himself has arranged a petty and shameful trial for him.

A representative of the FSIN (Federal Penitentiary Service – Ed. Past). He spoke so much nonsense, and in such an unfair and unfair way, that many felt angry. Since he couldn’t come up with anything reasonable in court, it seems to me that everyone has come to the conclusion that Mr. Navaln was tried for daring to survive the poisoning.

For daring to return to his own country. For daring to shame Vladimir Putin against the whole world with those tasteless $ 100 billion palaces and those gold toilet brushes. Navaln mocked Putin and ruined his reputation in the country. Now Putin is a president whose citizens do not love. Finally he lost the love of the people.

– If we compare the current street protests with the concentrations of 2011-2012, what would be the differences?

– In 2012, people who had something to lose protested in Balotnaya Square. These were protests not so much against Putin himself as against electoral fraud. The people demanded a fair election to review the results of the elections to the Russian Duma, and they gathered for an authorized rally without consequences.

Their goal was to demand that the government represent them. Now it is different. Now frustrated people are protesting, angry at the government and hating that power. These protests have already been personally directed against Putin.

One more moment. In 2011, a class of angry citizens, the liberal mainstream of the big cities, protested. Now protests are taking place across Russia. This is a popular protest. Representatives of the “people of the deep” also participate. So far, not everyone has taken to the streets, but those who have not come out are looking at the protesters, either sympathizing with them or adhering to neutrality. I will emphasize again. In 2011, people went to protest without intention to take risks, and now people have gone directly to the sticks of the Russian Guard. It’s another level of bravery.

– Is the conviction of A. Navalnas a crushing of the opposition or, on the contrary, an incentive to join?

– No crushing. I do not think that Mr. Navaln lives up to the entire deadline that he has been given, because the authorities themselves have made him a symbol of the fight against thieves and swindlers, the fight against Putin and the fight against injustice. It turned out that the opposition now has a leader on a par with Putin. Now, I’m not talking about qualifications, but about the ability to communicate one’s point of view to the masses.

Perhaps a crush was expected in the Kremlin, but the Navalna plantation created even more problems. A. Navalnas will sponsor Nelson Mandela, and his team will be able to keep working. These people will continue to do what they did, only with even greater political weight. So actually, we are not talking about smashing.

At first it seemed to me that they could destroy the opposition, but the government turned out to be so stupid that it did everything in an idiotic way, and it was impossible to think of a worse one. The story of the plane that landed at that airport, the attempted poisoning, the arrest … They did everything possible to make A. Navaln a symbol of the fight against them.

– In 2016, you ran for the State Duma, but did not arrive. With that in mind, how do you assess the state of Russian society? Did he not succeed because he was not objectively elected or was affected by the falsification of the electoral results?

– We had no observers at the time, and then I spoke with the former TIK (Territorial Electoral Commission) presidents and found out that there were forgeries in three of my districts. It turns out that even when I was “whispered” on all federal channels and assigned to a constituency where I had 11 competitors, my score was still relatively high.

But now the hatred of the government and of United Russia in particular has taken on another dimension. It is difficult for me to say whether society is ready to support the democratic opposition. I do not know. However, the fact that society is already ready for change and wants to change the dishonest mechanism, the wrong regime with all the repression and old and angry faces, is a fact. If there are normal candidates and the choice is fair, I have no doubt that they will win.

– But won’t these candidates have to repeat the phrases “Our Crimea”, “America is our enemy”? After all, if the presidential candidate doesn’t utter these phrases, he probably won’t elect him?

– We are not talking about the presidential elections now. We are talking about the next parliamentary elections. But if you want substance, the Crimean issue is no longer high on the agenda. For the most part, Crimea is no longer interesting to people. In 2016, the issue of Crimea bothered me during the elections, but now I am expressing my opinion on Crimea and people have started to hear arguments.

I explain: “Here is Crimea, and here is the pension reform. Had it not been for Crimea, they would not have raised the retirement age. After all, the retirement age increased due to the fact that you lost a lot of money. And they lost money due to the penalties we received for Crimea. ” People respond to my words calmly because they feel it themselves. That is, the Crimean issue deleted.

When it comes to “America is our enemy,” it is not that strong anymore. Maybe there is 20 percent. people who are “zombies” on television. But many now understand the need to befriend the West, because otherwise we will all be poor. People need to explain themselves: no one requires America to love and adore, but there is an elementary logic.

The West buys us oil and gas and provides us with technology without which we cannot live normally. And if we get angry with them now, we will get new sanctions and we will continue to live in poverty. It is better not to conflict with anyone. Do we need to get mad at Putin in the same place for everyone? There is no need. That is what you have to explain to people. Okay, America is still America, but Europe now, I think, is more than half normal for the Russian population.

– How do you assess the support of the European Union, specifically Lithuania, for the Russian opposition? She feels?

– It doesn’t feel very good here. Even ordinary civic activists often know nothing about it. And I don’t know because it’s not particularly debatable. I know this about what the European Parliament is and how the position of each state in the European Union affects the overall approach of the Putin regime. However, it is precisely this issue that is not being addressed by the Russian opposition.

– And Lithuania too?

– I know about Lithuania’s support, but we are talking about ordinary Russians, who will come out today to protest. They hardly know. However, this may not be so important. After all, it is not necessary to give the authorities another excuse to accuse the protesters of betraying the state.