Albats unsuccessfully for himself felt Khodorkovsky on separatism and attitude to Putin

Only recently (24 of December 2013 of the year) a “Military Review” published material on the consideration in the State Duma of a draft law on criminal responsibility for appeals to separatism or support for separatism in Russia. Just the other day, readers discussed the issue that, they say, now people like, for example, Yevgeny Albats will more reasonably argue about the territorial integrity of Russia. And that same Albats, Evgenia Markovna, decided to make a knight's move. The knight's move was that Mrs. Albats tried to “feel” the separatist sentiments of other people, in particular, the former prisoner, the former head of Yukos, Mikhail Khodorkovsky. Albats, being the editor-in-chief of The New Times, took an interview from the former, according to all opposition-minded citizens, “main” carer of the country. Took, obviously, hoping that Khodorkovsky would condemn the Russian authorities, announce that “in its present form” it is necessary to do away with Russia, about the need to “go to the Kremlin” or something like that.

But the interview with Mikhail Khodorkovsky, especially regarding attitudes towards separatism or, for example, to the personality of Vladimir Putin, turned out, to put it mildly, not quite to those that could be served under a hot political opposition sauce. Khodorkovsky’s many answers to Albats’s questions can be assumed to upset all the “irreconcilable” oppositionists of Russia (and the ideologists of the Russian opposition movement abroad), because the latter hoped for Khodorkovsky as the light of the new opposition wave, the mouthpiece of irreconcilability, the ideologist of the Russian political “ Big Bang. But Khodorkovsky, you know, in this regard let us down ... But he did, let's say, a big bang of a different nature.

Here are some excerpts from the interview, which is fully available by subscription to The New Times or in the general access mode on the Echo of Moscow website.

The interview section, entitled the author and the interviewer as “Putin, Navalny, Nationalism”, begins with the original phrase of Yevgenia Albats in the spirit of juggling journalism:

Albats: Tell me why they didn't kill you? ..

The very essence of journalism journalism is that the author of the question is going to pin someone with his question (in this case it is clear who, and this, of course, not Khodorkovsky ...) to the wall, and the author has already answered the question . Like, I know why ...

However, instead of the diatribe expected by all the ardent oppositionists and the interviewer himself (Eugenia Albats) to Putin and the “Putin regime”, Khodorkovsky began to spread his thoughts on the tree in a different direction. And not just to spread, but even expressing something like gratitude to the president for not allowing the oligarch’s family to be touched, and also forbade (the respondent himself says this) to apply violence to him (Khodorkovsky) in places of punishment.

Khodorkovsky (on this topic): ... so from the very beginning of my arrival in the first camp ...

Albats (zealous to transfer the conversation to the intransigence rails): You mean Krasnokamensk, where they tried to cut you all the same ...

Khodorkovsky (kills opposition intrigue): This is kurtosis. I assure you.

Millions of oppositionists in their hearts hit the table with a fist: what are you doing, Mikhail Borisovich, doing? .. Well, at least about the tortures in the "dungeons of the regime" told the world something ...

Khodorkovsky: Proceeding from my knowledge of Putin, I would like to say that, firstly, he wanted to send a signal to his entourage that they would stop fucking ... I would say this: it was possible to clean up the brothel that was around there, either on 10 Serdyukov, or releasing me ...

Albats (with a certain amount of internal disorder): It was a signal primarily for their own: they went too far ...

Khodorkovsky: Yes I guess! This is a signal to society and the world that I (I think Putin) feel quite stable, I am not afraid.



Khodorkovsky continues, again pouring out the “irreconcilables” with ice water:

I have never considered Putin to be a weakling, I am firmly convinced that a person who began his way in power (in power from the war), he cannot be a weakling by definition. If he lost the war or he was forced to lose, it does not matter, then the level of responsibility that he would have to bear could be absolutely anything. And the man who went for it at the very beginning, he is definitely not a wimp. This topic is forgotten!

Putin is comfortable playing the role of arbiter. He seems to like the role of Deng Xiaoping - the wise "over." As soon as he felt that some part of the society did not like his role as arbitrator, he simply took it out of the brackets.

Albats (exactly animated): That is it we?

Khodorkovsky (again killing opposition intrigue): Yep He said: the role of the arbitrator is more precious to me than the representative of all ...

In addition, Khodorkovsky is unflattering about the Democrats, who, according to his version, "knock out the authorities" in his spectrum as tough as Putin does in his spectrum. In general, Khodorkovsky actually equated the methods of the Democratic opposition members trying to break into the power Olympus with the methods of the president. The opposition Democrats at that moment were definitely choking on cookies ...

Well, and then the conversation turned to the very topic that was originally mentioned in the material. Khodorkovsky said that the term nationalism is mistakenly used in Russia today. According to him, the mistake is that today national-chauvinism is trying to bring this concept under. The words that the stage of creating Russia as a nation-state cannot be passed through to us, and that such a nation-state can be both Russian and Russian, caused a real shock among the hyper-liberal commentators of the interview.

Albats tried to make a last attempt to “instruct” Khodorkovsky on the “true path”, mentioning the North Caucasus, the need for separation of which, due to his “economic impotence,” is now spoken by many zealously-minded gentlemen. But the former prisoner also shakes off the ashes on, let's say, the ideological basis of the interview itself:

My approach to nationalism is completely separate. I think that compared to the question of territorial integrity, all other issues are ... still subordinate.

If we take into account that Khodorkovsky most likely knew about the recently expressed Albats words about the territorial integrity of Russia (well, remember when Evgenia Markovna stated that she would not be very upset even if Russia were divided along the Ural ridge), then his answer It seems to be a pill of unbearable bitterness for both Evgenia Markovna and supporters of her ideas ...

Khodorkovsky continues: the problems that may arise among millions of people when they challenge the problem of territorial integrity, they cannot be compared with almost any problems that exist in reality.

I believe that, for example, the separation of the North Caucasus is in a projection in two steps, millions of victims! I think war is a very bad thing, but if we are talking about secession of the North Caucasus, or war, then war means!

Albats is trying to “pull up” the thesis about the bloodless division, offering an example of divided Czechoslovakia, but Khodorkovsky is unshakable:

I do not discuss the situation as a global recipe. I am talking about Russia and our traditions ... We will have real blood. And if you ask me specifically: will I go to war or not? - I will go!

Albats (being in deep shock): For the North Caucasus ?! What is cultural for us? ..

Khodorkovsky: This is our land.

This, you understand, the interview came out ... Probably, after him, extremely opposition-minded gentlemen, who tried to make Khodorkovsky a “mouthpiece of liberalism", thought hard. And someone, finishing his valerian root tincture, reassured himself with a thought: the person has just freed himself - maybe this will happen to him sometime? ...