We have a cold occupation
I present to you the long-awaited exclusive interview of State Duma Deputy Yevgeny Fedorov, which I managed to take from him on Friday. From it you will learn:
Who censors Putin on federal television channels;
What are the names of American agents in the Russian government;
What is the reason for the adoption of the law "Dima Yakovlev";
As it happened, the United Russia faction passes laws on the orders of the US ambassador;
How “United Russia” was cleared from Putin’s supporters;
Who is to blame and what to do.
And that is not all. If you suddenly thought that Yevgeny Alekseevich troll me so thinly, or even got hooked on some substances, then I dare to assure you that he doesn’t look like a stupid fox and believes one hundred percent in what he says. And to believe him or not - this is decided by reading the interview. Personally, it all reminded me of the classic film “Aliens among us”, but ... read better for yourself.
Politresh The reason I was interested in interviewing you is your rather large, two-hour speech, which caused quite a large resonance in the blogosphere ...
Fedorov. However, I did not say anything new in it
P. But, nevertheless, the bloggers paid attention to the fact that there were many, in my opinion and the opinion of many other people, distortions and rather ambiguous statements. After that, I also watched your speech at MSU and a few of your various public ...
F. There are generally two hundred of them there, so you can watch them all day
P. Yes, but I could not see everything - the last ones looked the most. And now I have a few questions. I must say that the “financial part” will be left aside - I am not an expert in it. My friends who have studied your proposals related to the Central Bank say that there are really reasonable offers, and I tend to trust them. The only thing is, they have some minor claims and nuances there, but in general they support this initiative ...
F. Putin spoke in the Message.
P. Yes, I noticed, he actually supported your idea.
F. This is a common idea, but not mine.
P. But you are lobbying her personally.
F. I am lobbying for only one single idea - sovereignty. Everything else is a consequence.
P. We proceed to specific points. You stated that Putin, in fact, is subject to some censorship on federal television channels and, in general, Russian federal television is in the hands of Americans and enemies of the country.
F. Yes.
P. In our country, almost all federal television channels are owned either by the state or by near-state companies, such as Gazprom. And, accordingly, the leaders, in fact, are appointed by Vladimir Putin, that is, if we look at Dobrodeyev, at Kulistikov ...
F. Yeah.
P. So how is it that people appointed by Vladimir Putin, people appointed by the heads of federal channels censor the president of the country and who then does it for them? This is not entirely clear to me - who then censors Putin?
F. And let's see, there were more interviews and there all things fit together, because we are talking about the system. Well, for example, I gave the example of Comrade Kalinin there.
P. Yes, I remember that.
F. Comrade Kalinin, including his family, was subjected to certain pressure and repression. This was done by his personal subordinates, because it was generally “the president of the Soviet Union” by status ...
P. Well ... yes.
F. However, they did it. That is, you admit that a person who is president - with respect to him, his actions can be carried out formally - I will emphasize this word - by formal subordinates, contrary to his wishes, naturally. It is unlikely that Kalinin wanted repression against him, against his family. So?
P. That is, you believe that Dobrodeyev and Kulistikov are, let's say, Putin’s formal subordinates and he didn’t actually appoint them to these posts?
F. Well, that's obvious. I will give you another example to approach this topic. For example, take the relationship of Poland and the Soviet Union. Well, in Poland there were different positions, figures, it was an independent country, but no one, even now, believes that this independent country pursued an independent policy different from the policy of the Soviet Union. And, moreover, if you look at the internal system, then the entire infrastructure of the Polish independent state was subordinated, separately, to the neighboring state represented by the international department of the Central Committee.
P. So, it turns out, Vladimir Putin appointed these people under the pressure of some external forces?
F. No, it does not work. It is not possible that he appointed them under pressure; it turns out that he, as a guarantor of the Constitution, appointed them by virtue of the established cadre mechanisms. And in the staffing system, Vladimir Putin is a system of checks and balances. What is a “system of checks and balances”? This is when frames are assigned not from the first person, for example, but from some team, and he simply balances the teams with each other. This is a fundamentally different model of governance, because you are asking me now, so I’ll tell you that, say, the president of Germany, the same thing — he appointed the same media out there that were state-owned and they “soaked” him for the month with pleasure three or four ago and put a new president, for example. That is, this is the usual European, say, German model, system of relations. That is, if you speak Russian, the President of the Russian Federation is the guarantor of the Constitution, which, in fact, everyone says, that is, a “political notary”.
A notary is a person who cannot refuse an applicant if he has submitted the required set of documents. It's the same here. That is, in the relationship system, he signs papers, but this does not mean that they are members of his team. These are different things.
P. That is, they are still not members of his team?
F. Not members of his team. Moreover, if we look at the institutions, we will see ... For example, a business institute is the whole business of foreign jurisdiction. It means that he is an independent system from the point of view of power, and the solutions that he will offer to Putin will be proposed on the basis of the international system of relations.
P. I have a separate question about this.
F. And these are aggregate things. The same applies to everything else: the government, and its individual divisions, the political system ... Well, you are asking me now, and I will tell you - this is always and everywhere. To summarize, here is the first part of the answer, the system, when the guarantor of the constitution signs the papers prepared not by him - the standard system that exists in almost all states.
P. Yes, that is a fact. As a person who worked in the apparatus, I can confirm this.
F. And why do you think that something different works for Kulistikov? Same!
P. I just understand that Vladimir Putin is pursuing a fairly independent policy. Let's just say that he himself, personally, looks at such posts at the person whom he appoints and has a personal trust in him when he is appointed.
F. You see, see, looks! That is, they give him a man, and he looks at him.
P. Well, he is recommended by the person closest to him, for example, Zubkov.
F. No, the balance of power. He does not at all ... Here, apart from Holmansky, there is not a single appointment outside the system. And Kholmanskih is a separate story, and, say, a separate exceptional case. All cadres, both for Kalinin and for all presidents of all countries, are served by the system. And the system is tied to the Americans. In terms of strategic and global management. Accordingly, all frames are pumped through their control.
P. Honestly, while working in the system, I did not see this American control there, but it could be some kind of global, that is, mental ...
F. He is by the rules. That is, the Americans focused, like the Soviet Union in Poland, on the three main pillars. The first is the rules, that is, the strategy. The second is information. And the propaganda, because Poland had no right to its propaganda — it was Soviet inside Poland. Strategy, propaganda, and the information that is connected with it. Here are three areas on which the United States focused. And they are interested in institutions related to these areas - and therefore the Ministry of Education. But the Ministry of Transport and not interested. Just as the Ministry of Education was interested in the Soviet Union in Poland, and the Ministry of Transport was not interested.
P. Here, going over to the government ... You said that in the government the enemies are of the order of 80 percent, among them - direct American agents - five people. About five people. But could you, specifically, enumerate who we are talking about in this case, who are they? Well, here is the Ministry of Education. You mean the minister Livanov. This one, who else?
F. So, look, you started with an analytical question, and finished with some sort of public such, yes?
P. Well, all the same, I wonder the same ..
F. No, it is interesting - I understand, but I'm not a special service ... Everyone has their own hierarchy of approach. Here I have an analytical approach. Political and analytical. If I am an intelligence officer, I have to listen to the phones, compare the information ...
P. Maybe say “in your opinion”, who is? ...
F. Wait, compare the information and give it a surname. This is how it works. Mechanism. That is, at the level of special services they give you names ... I am sure that our special services know these names, just nobody asks them - they are not needed by anyone, they have been talking about this a lot since the times of the KGB of the USSR. When the KGB said: “These are the agents of the Americans,” and Gorbachev forbade them to distribute this information and it is publicly, that is, this system also works. We can now talk about those only from the point of view of analytics, I'm not a special service, I do not have a wiretap. So, I can only speak on the analytical component. We see that he publicly declared his support for the Americans of Lebanon, Golodets, well, there are still some ministers who are designated in legislative acts of the United States government as their foothold in Russia. I will not give names, because I am not a special service, but you will always find them. That is, such people simply exist, they are appointed by the Americans themselves, no one particularly hides. In fact, if we look at how the analytical apparatus of any ministry works, well, in this case, the ministry of education. That's what interested the Soviet Union in Poland? The Ministry of Education, everything connected with information, everything connected with the economy .. The same thing here - the Central Bank is under the full control of the United States, the Ministry of Education is under the full control of the Americans, because they need it. That is, for their own purposes, to control the situation of relations between Russia and the United States, as an occupier-vanquished, as a victor-vanquished, they need these tools, so they pay attention to them. They can take all the ministries in general, but this requires too much staff, and it is more difficult just technically.
P. I have a question for you then. How do you feel about the privatization program that the government has now initiated?
F. I consider the question in a different plane. Everything that is privatized in Russia - everything automatically goes to foreign jurisdiction. That is, this is a form of paying tribute.
P. That is, negative?
F. No, I did not say that. This is a tribute payment form. But the government and the public administration in general - they are also subject to the United States, as we have now discussed. That is, in terms of this approach - and so, and so bad. It is clear, yes? It will be good when Russia conducts nationalization, in the sense of the word in which it exists in the Russian language, and not in the way that it was “fooled” to us. Nationalization is not “nationalization” ...
P. I understand that this is a transfer to Russian jurisdiction.
F. Yes, that which Putin spoke about in his message.
P. I in this case fully support him, that is, some kind of anti-offshore campaign in Russia is certainly needed.
F. Not just anti-offshore, but the entire foreign elite, that is, from the point of view of politics. If we are talking about privatization, then I am a one hundred percent supporter of private property. Reinforced concrete. Because it is effective, I, as an economist, understand this. But privatization in Russia is not my question. Privatization in Russia has no effect, because if we transfer the economy to national jurisdiction, even if we transferred this company to foreigners, and we all have them from foreigners, that is, the private business is now foreign, they will still return to Russia. In the process of mechanisms embodied in the message to Putin. Therefore, for me this question is both evil. Therefore, I usually do not answer him.
P. You, probably, understood my hint - I meant that Arkady Dvorkovich, the brother of your colleague in the new party, is responsible for the privatization program ...
F. Not according to a new party, but according to a national liberation movement ...
P. Well, let's call it that.
F. We have Vladimir Putin among our comrades-in-arms ...
P. Well, and here, actually, I was interested in how you feel about this and whether you, for example, rank Arkady Dvorkovich among the very “enemy forces” in the government of the country that lead us ...
F. I do not count the enemy forces, because I am a lawyer, I am talking about real people. Real people are such that even if they work, say, State Duma deputies, on Americans, passing laws at the request of the United States (this is described in detail in WikiLeaks, this is done), this does not mean that ... Let's just say that in the occupied territory it is different and can not be. This does not mean that we need to take all the people who have collaborated with the occupiers out of the country — then we will lose half the country. It is not right. Therefore, we are talking only about those people who not only cooperate with the Americans, but publicly declare their position: “I don’t care about Russia, I’m publicly an agent of the United States, and you, the natives here, I nachyal, and when I finish here work, I will leave the owner in the States, get the necessary cottages and support from them, cover and everything else, and I will, my family, my children and my great-grandchildren will live there ”... This is another little tonality of relations.
P. Well, as far as my memory serves me, none of our ministers spoke this way, including Lebanon and Golodets. They did not say such words.
F. No, they openly said: “Putin’s policy does not suit us” ...
P. They openly criticized the law related to the ban on adoption of Russian orphans by Americans, but the same law was criticized, for example, by Minister Lavrov, who is difficult to blame for having pursued some kind of occupation policy.
F. You, a little bit, how to say it, move away from the common sense of real relationships between people. The real relationship is such that in the occupied territory - all under the occupiers. That is, it is not so that, say, in Poland there are people who are for the Soviet Union and against the Soviet Union, I mean Poland of the Soviet era. Such a principle can not be! Everything is for the Soviet Union, do you understand, yes? Only a few in the kitchens scolded or gnashed his teeth, but at work they followed his instructions. And some did not do this, and what is called, they betrayed their homeland with joy, so Lebanon is among the second, he betrays his homeland with joy, as well as Golodets. I see from the statements of Livanov and Golodets ...
P. And Lavrov not?
F. Lavrov is an international official and he has his own rules in relationship systems.
P. Good.
F. That is, well, okay, yes?
P. Yes, I understand where you draw the line. Let's discuss in general, this law "Dima Yakovlev". You said that it is not a response to the “Magnitsky Act” in the USA. I deliberately picked up his text, I even brought it with me just in case. Here, from which, in principle, it follows that this is a kind of “mirror” answer.
F. Show where you should, underline ...
P. Even if we go first. We see that there is no justification in it, that this is a response to the “Magnitsky Act”, but we see a ban on entry. In principle, there are many of the same points that are present in the “Magnitsky Act”. I know that the “Magnitsky Act” is a very broad thing, it is not limited to people who are involved in the death of Magnitsky himself. I know that.
F. It is unknown to all our leading channels: “First,” “Russia,” NTV. This is for journalists, although there are many people who know English, it is simply unknown. This means that they do not obey Russian jurisdiction, in terms of their information policy. Conduct a coordinated policy of a foreign state.
P. In my opinion, there is more likely a question of non-professionalism than of foreign management.
F. Listen, why do you think that a huge team of “First” or NTV, or “Russia”, a thousand people, they have lower professionalism than you?
P. Let's just say, I came across stories that allow me to talk about it.
F. Here you are alone, and they are a system in which: lawyers, internationals, correspondents, that is, one person can make a mistake, and a thousand people make a mistake more difficult. And they have lower professionalism than you alone?
P. No, of course. On some channels it was mentioned that in the “Magnitsky Act” an extended interpretation of those who may fall under its action.
F. Then, when it was no longer possible not to mention it, when they had already taken, as you know, a naughty cat and a muzzle were poked, so that he would not pour puddles another time. Only then began to mention. That is, open the Internet, see the official text of the law of the United States, that when you describe it in the 10 video for minutes, do you think this is low professionalism, having correspondents there even in the States?
P. Do you think that this was purposeful censorship?
F. Obvious thing! Or when, NTV provides information with a long roller of 5 minutes, showing the statement of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, where everything is correctly written from the screen, and lies behind the scenes. Do you think non-professionalism does not look in the paper that you show?
P. There it does not happen.
F. This happens when they give command to the United States and their control system of Russian channels. As in Polish television, this happened when the appropriate authorities gave such a command. This is all a system thing. Just the occupation system is such that they are not fools, and this is work. Employees who have a career, fate, income depend on the employer or manipulator, which is located in the United States. Therefore, this is not a mistake. Moreover, we explained in advance in half a year what the “Magnitsky Act” is, where we were given the floor. To pretend that we have not read, because we do not need to read. Read and deliberately lied.
P. Let's move on to the law.
F. It is clear that the “Magnitsky Act” is one of the points of direct violation of the freedoms of a citizen of the Russian Federation, namely the right to private property.
P. I do not argue with that.
F. Therefore, on the same day we adopted a law prohibiting officials from having property abroad. It is important that this is a pure response to this clause from the “Magnitsky Act” so that the United States cannot manipulate Russian officials. Accordingly, when a law is adopted prohibiting the possession of property abroad, it reduces the degree of manipulation, is it logical?
P. Certainly.
F. I am not about assessments, I am about facts. This is the answer?
P. Completely.
F. So here is the answer. Why say that "the law of Dima Yakovlev" is the answer?
P. He was positioned as a response by the deputies of the State Duma.
F. Who exactly? I did not say this.
P. Seregey Zheleznyak, if I am not mistaken, and those are the speakers of United Russia who are most cited.
F. Cite the one who will indicate the Americans. Such a rule is the manipulation of the information space. Pull out a certain context of information. Someone may have said so because he thought so. But this context, gave him a format of total scale. I do not think this is a response to the “Magnitsky Act”, although it was adopted in connection with the act. And it was adopted with the act, it’s understandable why, we were striving for the same ban on the sale of children abroad for quite a long time.
P. And why, was to tie the story with the children, with the response to the aggressive act of the United States?
F. I was lucky that there was a window of opportunity to pass a law against the slave trade. I was lucky to have such a political situation, such a window of opportunity in time, in connection with the attack on the Russian Federation. This is our traditionally Russian history. In Russia, the reaction occurs when it is attacked. Remember when Putin said in Botlikh: “We were attacked!”? This made it possible to cancel Khasavyurt, which Botlikh did not touch. Here, the same story. Would not have defeated Napoleon, if he had not reached Moscow.
P. That is, in fact, the “Magnitsky Act” became the catalyst that made it possible to pass such a law?
F. Allowed to get rid of the slave trade. Just when we have a system of colonies, then the colonies are of different status. Here is the degradation of the Russian status of the colony has reached the point that we have come to the slave trade.
P. Good. In this regard, the question is, here we have not prohibited foreign adoption, but is prohibited only in the US, why not adopt adoption to EU countries?
F. Could not, did not have enough balance of political forces. This is also a system. The internal system of allies is developing. Suppose we advocate a complete ban on the slave trade. We considered this ban five times at a faction meeting, but a certain coalition was formed for a specific situation. That is, we were attacked, a shock occurred, this shock formed a temporary coalition for sovereignty. The coalition for sovereignty has managed to implement part of the program for sovereignty associated with the most odious components of the colonial regime in Russia.
P. It turns out that you think that this whole story is not a response to the “Magnitsky Act”, but simply got the opportunity, in the given political and informational conditions, to make this decision?
F. Yes, yes, yes!
P. By the way, this is a completely understandable argument. Often, the deputies of United Russia are very confused.
F. We have long been pierced it! Not only did it happen only with the States, but this is true 70% of foreign trade.
P. Question about statistics, do you call the number in 500 of thousands of children taken to the USA?
F. Yes.
P. I specifically raised the official statistics. Since 2002, Americans have adopted a little less than 30 of thousands of children, that is, it does not agree with the official statistics.
F. Let's look at the statistics. So, the official statistics that 60 was sent to us from the ministry of thousands of adopted children by the Americans.
P. I guess this is a digit from 91 of the year.
F. I can give you the materials of this statistics. Statistics presented by the ombudsman in the State Duma over 100 thousands of children. The 500 statistics are thousands, it includes what was not included here. What did not go there. First, 500 thousand since the work of Raisa Gorbacheva, somewhere from 91 of the year, and the statistics we count with 94, and some with 99. Not only that, 90s were without statistics at all, really nobody was doing anything. Secondly, all criminal adoptions went without statistics. Here, for example, the Volgograd court proved the criminal adoption of 1200 children in Italy, this terrible story showed the work of only one agency.
P. Nevertheless, we did not prohibit the adoption of children in Italy, which would be logical.
F. Italy, this accidentally found a situation. Once they exposed one woman who alone took out 1200 children. Naturally, these children are not included in any statistics. You can safely add these 1200 to 100 thousands. But this is not the only case. Just the court accidentally, I emphasize, accidentally installed 1200 children. In addition, add the illegal export of children, for the same purposes, but not passed through the procedure of judicial decisions, and so on. Children exported under the guise of tourist trips, under the guise of sporting events, that is, it is also a semi-criminal component of the sale of children abroad. Based on the combination of these factors, we define half a million. It is clear that only percent 20 passes through the statistics. Most do not intercept statistics.
P. You are critical of the faction in which you are yourself. You said that, in principle, Putin’s team in the State Duma was cleansed, they called the order of numbers more than 100 people.
F. This is true. Here you work in an organization, you, as a reasonable person, understand if you had 200 experienced workers who dragged the organization, then you took it, woke up in the morning and half of them were fired, and took their people from the street. The quality of your organization will fall.
P. On the other hand, we are talking about the State Duma, where there should be some rotation of deputies.
F. Not just a rotation, but let's see who came to replace. But if you fired 100 people with ballast and instead took brilliant specialists who in other companies showed that their work level is higher, that is, an aggressive personnel policy, then your company will give 100 percent a jump. But we see that it is not so! In the State Duma did not take those people who had sufficient experience in political activities. Maybe one of them will receive this experience in the Duma, and maybe not. But, first, if he gets this experience, 5 years will pass. Political experience is very difficult to comprehend. We understand that there has been a sharp decrease in the quality of the staff of the State Duma, well, at least. If this happens, then there is a customer. So, the question is, who was the customer of the process of reducing the quality of work in the State Duma? Next, we begin to disassemble the frames whom we cleaned. One of the Communist Party deputies Bagaryakov dared to raise the theme of the Duma’s enactment of laws at the command of the United States, came to the podium and said this in connection with the adoption of specific laws. And he is not an expert in this matter. He simply juxtaposed the absolutely obvious facts on the specific laws by which he worked on the committee. This is called “sick”. Yes? He came to the podium and said, “Why do we do that? Here the US ambassador orders us to pass a law, that you have the law for which you vote, in the wording as the ambassador demands. This is not good, we are not the American Duma, but the Russian one, ”said the deputy from the rostrum. For this, he was cleared.
P. Well, in fact, in order to pass a law, both in the past Duma and in this one, the vote of the United Russia faction is necessary. It turns out that the “United Russia” faction votes according to the laws that are required by the US ambassador?
F. I understand. I'm talking about you. Naturally, the United Russia faction and, in general, the State Duma votes according to the law required by the US ambassador. Except in the case of manual control, when Putin turns on directly and manually pulls out the question. But it cannot be included under every law. I remind you that on the day we have dozens of laws on the agenda. That is, this is a rare exception, this is manual control. Manual control is different from the system. System for Americans, manual control for Putin
P. Well, well, the system. The head of the faction "United Russia" at the moment Vasiliev, if I'm not mistaken. It turns out that Vasiliev is directly subordinate to the US ambassador? After all, how else could it be?
F. Not so. You just do not know the mechanism of the State Duma and legislation. And I know him, so I'm talking about this. That is, I do not say it from the outside. I say this, knowing the details of this mechanism. Five hundred laws passed to me to the State Duma, personally through me.
P. Have you already, if I am not mistaken, a lot of convocations in the Duma?
F. I am from the first convocation, with a break of two convocations. That is, four convocations. And he was the chairman of the committee, and deputy chairman of the committee, and so on. Technology enough to understand how it works. The technology is such that of course these issues are not solved in the Duma. But this is no secret for everyone, as specialists, everyone understands this, these issues are not decided by the Duma. The Duma is the final authority on which the end is put. In a sense, notaries.
P. Under the sources, where laws are often prepared, apparently, you have a government and presidential administration?
F. No. Laws are prepared in special, hired units of US specialists. And still it is done. I mean large, serious laws, except trifles. Serious laws are written precisely by these offices. Grants of the USA are allocated, the law is written on them, further this law emerges in the appropriate division of the government, on the table. When I worked at the Ministry of Atomic Energy, I have experience in government, Adamov took out a wad of laws from under the table, put them on the table and said: “Here, we wrote the law. Let's take it. ” And the names of the authors were not known, the text just materialized on the table. To be clear, writing the law is a very serious work that a lawyer simply does not write. These are special lawyers in the field of laws, there are not many of them in Russia at all. To establish who wrote is not so difficult, we do not have a large market. It happened this way. Further, the ministry had enough of this law, covering it up with some small money, which were allegedly allocated for its development. But really it was cover money. The law sufficed, brought already through the government and further the procedure itself worked. But the basis of this procedure was the position of the United States and it is written in detail in their documents. That is, we have mechanisms in the Duma, mechanisms in the government, and finally, a third party, mechanisms in the territory of the vertical of US governance. The embassy prepared the text of the laws through grantees, who wrote and agreed with the ministries and departments, then these laws were approved in Washington, in the form in which it is necessary. Then the process took place: from above, Washington lowered this law to Russia, from the bottom the grantees submitted this law through the ministries. This entire aggregate system was connected in the State Duma, in the form of a law. Then the president was submitted for signature, he is obliged to sign it, because this is a procedural question, in fact, for the president.
P. And now, do you suppose this system continues to operate in approximately the same form?
F. So its WikiLeaks describes in detail. She acts 20 years.
P. In WikiLeaks, I carefully studied all the materials on Russia that were published.
F. The law on the national payment system read?
P. Yes. I know the story associated with this law. I know that there were money allocated by American payment systems for lobbying the whole story.
F. This is not about lobbying. The point is that technologically the ambassador decided what the text of the law should be. The fact that at the same time he was called lobbying, well, it does not matter, it is his internal procedure, well, they pay for everything somewhere. It is impossible to say that the employee works for a salary, he is lobbying for this salary, this is his job, the ambassador has such work. The system of grantees is their job, this is not what they pay for the laws, but they are paid for the work as a whole.
P. Good. This whole system involves a fairly large amount of funding for American agents in Russia. As we know, the USAID Foundation was recently banned in Russia. But through what channels this money is then introduced into Russia, do you know the financial side of this question? Or actually we pay ourselves?
F. Part of the pay. By the way, our grants, 70% of our grants go to finance foreign anti-Russian organizations.
P. Our grants, do you mean that the president allocates?
F. Who singled out the Russian authorities. This information is not even mine, it was not from me. Look at the materials of the 3-4 clubs of the summer prescription, the clubs of “United Russia”, there it passes. That is why “United Russia” was also cleared out, on the previous question. We have now discussed Bagaryakov from the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, and in United Russia, 100 people, Putin, have been cleared out. But in general, 200 people have been cleared, only along the line of United Russia. This is a purge that is deadly to any organization. Cleared the people of Putin. Vasiliev is one of those who stayed. There are 15 people left somewhere, Vasiliev among them.
P. Who else, if not a secret? Who do you consider to be Putin’s wing of United Russia? Just interesting is always the names. You, of course, Vasilyev, who else?
F. 15 people approximately. I do not want to get into the names. Concrete is a question for analytics in another sphere, in the sphere of personal things. I am a political analyst, I am interested in phenomena, but not in concrete people, because you name a specific person, it doesn’t matter plus or minus, and then a specific situation arises that will damage the cause.
P. As regards the recent rumor. The fact that the faction "United Russia" allegedly intends to discuss the future stay in the faction and the party of you, as well as deputies Sidyakin and Kostunov. Is it a lie or a truth?
F. This is another information provocation. We have looked at the example of the case of Magnitsky mechanism of American propaganda, provocation and lies. As with Putin's daughters who study abroad. The whole system is built on lies, and the whole media system in us is built on lies. And this is another such thing. A provocation, a lie is a constant story, so I have long been used to these provocations. And speaking of me personally, there are only two of us in the State Duma. By the way, the question is also why in the 12 years from the founders of the Unity-Bear bloc, which was made with Putin, only two people remained.
P. You, and?
F. Klintsevich. Why have the others been trimmed? Clearing the last years of the final. Prior to this, the cleansing was also smaller, but they were also. Of the two founders of organizations 7 left. Therefore, if we talk about the ideology of "United Russia", I know better. Just then added to her official opponents and opponents of Putin. "Fatherland", "All Russia" and another organization there. Never mind. Three or four opponents were added, a quarter of the ideology under which the party was built was left. And then they also carried out numerous purges, including the last one, when 200 was left out of the 15 "Putintsev". It is clear that the organization will change its ideological appearance.
P. Well, after all, Putin has ceased to be the party leader.
F. Therefore, he ceased to be the leader of the party. Because to be the leader of a party that has so strongly changed its ideology, when so much opposite is mixed into the original ideological material. It has changed so much that it became inconvenient for him to lead United Russia. He went to other formats, to the formats of consolidation, to the “People's Front” and so on. These are obvious things, but this does not mean that I have to throw United Russia along with Putin, it would be wrong. On the contrary, in no way should United Russia be in the system of opponents of the national liberation movement, it should be in their ranks. For this, there must be people who must “anchor” it under Putin’s path, the path to sovereignty. I just think, as the creator of this party, in no case can not go somewhere with Putin. We must continue to work in the party. There is a quite serious basis for this, on which United Russia is built, even after the Americans cleaned it up by 95%. The basis remained, it needs to be restored, reproduced.
P. In this regard, I have a question, exactly connected with the creation of the project “Free Russia”, is this party supposed to be?
F. It is assumed. The main project of this, I have said many times about it, is the project of the system of national liberation forces, i.e. the national liberation movement, that is the project. At the final stage, all the political forces of Russia should enter into it, just as they consolidated around the “Dima Yakovlev” law.
P. Faction Just Russia, though not all voted for him, only some of the deputies.
F. As a fraction, she consolidated. Pro-American is everywhere or propagandized. We say that in any national liberation movement the principles of association are independent of political views, the most important is the freedom of the Motherland. If in the army, in the Red Army during the war with Hitler, they began to find out who has what political views, the army would have fled in 3 day.
P. Some coordinating council of national liberation forces.
F. Of course. This is the main direction. Inside this direction set. Party construction for us is secondary, the most important is the freedom of the Motherland. And already party building has the views of every group of people, this is normal. But for the goal of freedom, everyone should unite, while holding their views. The Free Russia Party, which we are talking about, is a so-called “one-purpose” project. The goal is sovereignty. There even in the statute it is written that this party exists only until the restoration of the sovereignty of the country. Therefore, I support this project. He is not just a party project. We work according to the American rules, they also created party mechanisms, the whole system. Working by the American rules, of course, you can take a maximum of these rules, but we will not change the rules themselves. Therefore, I support the project Free Russia, as a party of one goal, restoring the country's sovereignty. Inside the system of the national liberation movement, it also carries its role, it is the role of the legal department related to electoral matters. Because the technology itself is decided by the coordinating council of the national liberation movement, other mechanisms. Here is my attitude to this party. Generally speaking, there is a certain cunning, which may not be everyone knows. We proceed from the assumption that the Free Russia party, which sets the task of restoring sovereignty and after that it is liquidated, but the fact is that all parties are liquidated. Because from the moment of restoration of sovereignty, the entire political system of the country will have to be built from scratch.
P. Do you think that the party system ...
F. She is all pro-American, as a system
P. Party will exist?
F. Will. But they will all be built from scratch. It will be necessary to completely reformat all party building. Therefore, when Free Russia says that this party is only sovereign, the paradox is that all the other parties are like that. Only they have not yet entered this logic, and Free Russia has already entered it. In this regard, all parties will cease to exist from the moment of restoration of the country's sovereignty. We understand that the final stage is to change all legislation from pro-American to national, and to change the Constitution to the national type of government, i.e. the final stage is a change in the Constitution, years after 7
P. Do you think that after about 7 years, this is what should all happen?
F. End. This should happen all 7 years.
P. We have an election cycle, as you understand, there is a 2016-2018 year.
F. No. I estimate approximately. I understand that there are things that will require a year of 3. Well, let's say street activity will require a year of 3, in order for people to be reformatted into a national liberation movement. In principle, Russia is such a country, in my opinion, everyone will rise for the freedom of their Homeland. Another thing is to break through the propaganda American information-information barrier, this is the main question. And this main question will have to be solved by the year 3.
P. Got it. You mean the formation of some of your information field. Yes?
F. No. Just the truth. We do not need the truth about everything, we need the truth about the status of the Russian Federation as an occupied territory, as a colony. Sometimes they accuse me that you say that a colony, which means that you need to lower the type of hand. On the contrary. If we are telling the truth, we will mobilize.
P. Well, we are mobilizing, but to fight with whom? You understand?
F. With the occupier.
P. I will explain.
F. Who did India mobilize during the time of the colony?
P. There were specific Englishmen. Well, well, let's say relatively speaking that we mobilized. Who do we need to take to prison and deport from the country?
F. No, it is necessary to deport from the country and to prison those who at the last stage will be with weapons in the hands will stand up for the occupiers. This is probably theoretically possible, but I do not think this will happen.
P. Just when you talk about Americans, I do not understand ...
F. Occupants. I'm talking about the occupiers, who are Americans for us.
P. Well, yes. Well, there is almost no specific indication of who these same occupiers are. That is, in general, you have a logical system present and is rather well-proportioned, but it lacks in it, absolutely, in my opinion, not enough specifics.
F. Concrete is absolutely understandable. The management vertical, that is, the CPSU Central Committee, the Politburo, and the Secretary General are the State Department, the embassy, and the grantees. This is the political system that fulfills the role of the politburo, the CPSU Central Committee for governing the country.
P. In your opinion, if, relatively speaking, to throw a bomb at the US embassy and shoot all the grant recipients of the American funds, then the problem will be solved? I exaggerate of course.
F. We have a cold occupation here. Cold occupation is different from hot in that there is no enemy with a weapon. On the territory of Russia, because on the territory of big Russia it is.
P. Military bases you mean.
F. The whole of the Baltic states, there officially occupiers go with weapons. In Georgia and so on. That is, in Russia there is, because for a normal person, Russia is the Soviet Union. Because it is historical Russia, and the Russian Federation is one of the 15 Gauleitra created by the occupier in the occupied territory, just. Here on our Gauleiter, there is no enemy with a weapon, with some exceptions. Because exceptions are provided by Gorbachev, well, this is purely such a military-specific thing. With a few exceptions, no. Therefore, this is a cold mechanism of occupation. He does not change the essence. That is, the tasks are the same. That is, like Hitler’s export of children, people, workers, capital, money, resources, the same thing, even on a large scale. For children, ten times more than Hitler, the Americans took out of Russia. That is, the goals are the same, but the methods are different. The methods are soft, cold, modern methods of occupation. And this is the difference. The Tatar-Mongolian methods of occupation worked similarly, but let's say they differ from Hitler's occupation. There were still Tanks and enemy troops. It is not so, but it does not change the essence of the mechanism. There is a separate ministry, department. The same Central Bank. The same Ministry of Education, which performs the functions of an office in the occupied territory. Suppose, in the 17th occupation of the Brest Peace, special occupation commissions created in Germany were engaged in this. Then Kaiser Germany. That is, everything works the same technologically. Only in these establishments are non-foreigners now serving, although foreigners served in the 90s. That is, in the 90 years it was a direct mechanism of these offices, direct control. Now Russian citizens are working, whom the Americans entrusted to collect tribute in the occupied territory of the Russian Federation. So they should be transformed, since this is a cold occupation, it’s not for us to plant someone, the question is not so much, for us there is a question to change the essence of the work of these bodies. That is, we believe that the Central Bank should work for Russia, and not for America.
P. To do this, you need to adopt another law on the Central Bank.
F. To do this, you need to adopt a different Constitution. Because the Central Bank acts on the basis of the Constitution, too. That is a little law. The law will not allow to accept. Putin tried. I recall, ten years ago, he was not given.
P. This is how you think, if now he said this in the Message, he will not be allowed to accept again? And who will not give him?
F. Like last time - America. Who are the agents of the policy of restraining changes in the direction of sovereignty, let us just write them on paper: 1 is the country's elite, the entire business, large, including. You must swear allegiance to a foreign state, then you will be an entrepreneur.
P. That is, you say that Russian corporations, private ones, take their parent companies offshore because they are forced to do so.
F. Because these are the rules. The important thing is that 100% ...
P. So after all they themselves go there. They go there themselves to pay less tax.
F. Let's do that. Because of the Russian system of government and laws go. Even during the Nazi occupation, a man did not go to Germany because his arms were twisted and led to him. In any case, he rearranged his legs voluntarily. These are conditions. They were created by the Americans. Sub point one. They create the rules of occupation. They created them so that, according to these rules, big business cannot exist in Russia. We therefore say to change the laws to Putin in his Address he said that on the one hand there was the opportunity to work large businesses, according to numerous parameters, and second subparagraph - is that we pull back. By the way, I am a supporter of returning business to Russia. There are people who offer to cut off and create a new one. I think this is wrong. I think we need to return our business, and for this, of course, first of all, we need to create conditions for it here. But Americans will not be allowed to create conditions for him here. This is a political struggle.
P. Will Americans block the corresponding bill?
F. Of course. And they will introduce others that will be directed in the opposite direction. Relatively speaking, it was not possible for them to conduct a basic law on juvenile justice. They broke it into nine and spend. They control the system. That is, they do not need. If they see that a big law comes up against and does not pass, they will carry it through nine others. And no one will track them, because the system is on their side. And manual control allows you to track one, two, three laws, not more.
P. So why doesn’t the manual control mechanism enforce these necessary laws if the manual control mechanism you described works.
F. Works, but he, too, is not omnipotent. There are absolutely blatant things - the slave trade, when it’s already obvious that the country has been taken to the extreme. That is, they drove her into the slave age, the occupiers drove, orders were imparted to this extent. And if we are talking about more serious things, there will not be one law. Need a set of rules. Well, let's say the law "Dima Yakovlev"? Basically, who performs it? Courts. Narrow enough in terms of the ban on the export of children. We have a fairly narrow system of judicial power. And if we are talking about economic laws, then they include millions of people and here the level of influence of the American occupiers on the processes increases hundreds of times. It is one thing to control the case of thirty courts, and another thing is economic legislation, which is connected with the circulation of science, with the circulation of intellectual property, with the technology market. There are so many complex components that are not lined up at all in manual control. Because manual control involves working with one or two objects, and then thousands of objects and they all run away like cockroaches. You grabbed one object, while others ran away, because you have two hands, not a thousand. You are not Shiva. Therefore, you cannot manually resolve issues of a deeper system transformation. They will have to be output to the system, but in order to output them to the system, it is necessary to change the previous points of the questions, that is, the political system. We have to do everything consistently. This is what takes six to seven years.
P. Good. Let's talk about the future a little bit. We will have a presidential election in 2018. In your opinion, will Vladimir Putin run for the next term? And if it is not Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin, then, actually, who? And what will be the configuration of political forces in these elections?
F. I believe that at the next election a final, already political answer will be given to the question: “Will Russia be a sovereign country or not?”. And the question, in my opinion, will and should sound that way. That is, in the elections all the parties that will participate in them, they will be divided into openly occupying parties, that is, on the side of the occupiers and the political occupation system; and on the party of sovereignty, that is, the party of the national liberation policy or the national policy, as Putin designated it in his Address. That will be the division of all political forces for the first time, because the Americans are afraid and are struggling to ensure that such a question is on the agenda at all. Why are they fighting and resisting me so much? Because I put a question on the agenda, for Russia it is extremely sensitive ideologically. Well, of course, I don’t put it, but Putin puts it - I’m just a scout in this direction, that is, he has an army only, and I have a reconnaissance unit. But the logic is in this, so there is such a struggle. Because the very posing of this question for Russia means an unequivocal answer. Because each of us has grandfathers who died for their homeland. Therefore, it is because the issue and will stand in the next election, in the electoral design context, that is, or it will be the blocks and those blocks that question will stand as the main or party, but in fact, in my opinion, should be formed after the elections have the total coalition for the restoration of sovereignty, which has already completed the process, including amending the Constitution to restore the sovereignty of the country.
P. I understood the configuration of political forces, but so far without concrete personalities. Early to speak more?
F. We are talking about the first time that the Russian policy will be determined not by an acquaintance, and the policy approaches, that is, an ideology which, by the way, in Russia is prohibited, that is, it is a definite violation of the Constitution. But, nevertheless, it will have to go. That is, we are entering elections from the point of view of purely ideological approaches. If you are for the freedom of your Homeland, then yes, you can go through elections and participate in this big coalition for the freedom of your country.
P. Concerning the amendment of the Constitution. What provisions, in your opinion, are the main ones that need to be changed. I understand how this Constitution was created, that is, under what conditions it was written and who - this is in general an obvious fact. I heard a moment connected with the Central Bank. I heard a moment connected with ideology. What other moments, in your opinion, require a change of the Constitution in order to regain sovereignty?
F. According to architecture, the most important is ideology, because a ban on national ideology is a ban on life. How does an animal differ from man? The animal has no ideology, that is, a worldview system, but man has it. That is, in fact, Americans are forbidden in the Russian ideology, they determined the degradation of the Russian man, a resident of submitting to this Constitution - to the level of the animal, and then that's what television makes us animals, this is a consequence of the decisions that were taken in 1993 year United States of America in the occupied territory of the USSR, Ukraine and all the rest. Therefore, the issue of ideology is still key. Next comes the issue of building a government system. The system of government in Russia is not national, it is colonial and it is spelled out in the Constitution. The essence of this system of government is that all strategic elements of government are prohibited on Russian territory, and the Constitution says so. So we will have to change in the Constitution the most important issues of the government of Russia and in general the self-organization of the Russian people.
P. Do you think that it is necessary to abandon the current system of separation of powers between the branches of government? Do you think that the optimal system for us is presidential or some other?
F. No. It is not a question of the presidential or non-presidential system at all. I am not against the separation of powers and even for. The question is different. At the national level, there are no strategic institutions of governance in general. That is, relatively speaking, we have rights for all state authorities in the aggregate, which are formed on a national basis - at the level of dispatchers. And they are openly talking about this, and Medvedev said this: “I am the manager,” he said of himself as president. A manager is an executive body. That is, the pipe broke through - ran and patched, as they say. Here is the level of Russian government and it is provided for by the Constitution. That is, the entire strategic component is missing. We cannot think and invest resources in development associated with long-term periods: 10 years, 20 years, 30 years. In comparison with neighboring competitive nations that have a sovereign right to do so, we lag behind them annually. And everything else is a consequence of this management system. Relatively speaking, when you come to work, you work according to the rules of your work. This is how the state works according to the rules defined by the Americans. Including, in the context of management. The president can make certain decisions, but he cannot take a whole bunch of others. The prime minister is the same. There is a huge reservoir of decisions that at the national level, in relation to our fate, no one can take, only the Americans, only the occupiers. This part should be corrected, that is, the vertical of the control system should be completely changed. We thought so, the Constitution needs somewhere in fifteen major amendments. But now it’s too early to talk about the details of this process, because the question of forming the Constitution is a question of consolidating the national liberation movement. This process will happen in three years. Then we can create the conditions for the development of a new Constitution.
P. And do you have any allies in this national liberation movement, for example, in the executive branch?
F. Well, listen, an ally is every person in Russia. This is a serious thing. An ally in any resistance movement is one hundred percent of the citizens of this country who link their fate with it, because many people here do not connect their fate with Russia.
P. Well, not many, but there is, yes.
F. Many, according to polls in general a lot. And all the rest will be allies. The only question is that it should reach them. Ashes of fathers should manifest themselves in them - the citizens of Russia. He manifested himself in the elections - 64% for Vladimir Putin, but he must appear on the streets, in an active political position, because sovereignty is not won in elections. It is won only by the active personal participation of each person.
P. Thank you, Evgeny Alekseevich, good interview. I think that many will like it.
Information