Eighty-four-year-old Lev Ponomarev has been declared wanted in the Russian Federation. He is one of the creators of
“Memorial”* and “Democratic Russia,” a trusted representative of Sakharov, and, in the past
decade, the first personal “foreign agent” in the history of the Russian Federation. In a major interview with
Republic, Ponomarev explained how he invited Yeltsin to the “Memorial” council on the basis
of a poll on Pushkin Square, why he called support for Putin from the Union of Right Forces
a betrayal, what lies behind the torture conveyor belt in Russian penal colonies —
and why he still believes in the country’s democratic future.
— Lev Alexandrovich, thank you for finding time for us. I’ll begin the first question with
a quotation. “A brilliant career. From Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences, friend of the exiled
Academician Orlov and trusted representative of Sakharov, one of the creators of “Memorial” and
“Democratic Russia,” through 30 years of human rights work in a country sliding toward
dictatorship, through hundreds of rallies and thousands of court cases, to becoming Russia’s first
personal ‘foreign agent’ and, finally, being declared wanted at the age of 84. Our
congratulations!” That was how social media reacted to your being declared wanted.
Do you accept the congratulations?
— I would put it this way. This decision does not matter very much. And in that quotation there is
only one mistake. That is good too. Yury Orlov was not
an academician. He was a corresponding member of the Armenian Academy of Sciences. But his main
achievement was that he created the Moscow Helsinki Group (MHG). He truly is my close
friend. We were friends. The MHG — that is the main thing. That is what Orlov will remain in history for.
You read out that I am the first foreign agent in Russia. That question may perhaps
also be interesting. Why was I among the first?
Reference
• On December 28, 2020, by decision of the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation, the register of media
performing the functions of a foreign agent was expanded to include the first
individuals in Russian history — Lev Ponomarev, Darya Apakhonchich, Denis
Kamalyagin, Sergey Markelov, and Lyudmila Savitskaya; this became the first
application of new legal norms that allowed
the status of “foreign-agent media” to be assigned not only to organizations and editorial offices, but also
to individual citizens.
I can guess why I was awarded such an honor. In that sense — an honor. I remember
there were five people there. Two were from the Pskov newspaper Pskovskaya Guberniya (Lyudmila
Savitskaya and Denis Kamalyagin. — Republic).
But first I’ll say who human rights defenders are in the general scheme of things…
— By now this is already a pejorative term in contemporary Russia.
— In propaganda — naturally. There are certain standard ideas, namely that
human rights defenders are a group of people, usually lawyers, who help
people when the law is violated in relation
to some of their affairs. Not necessarily criminal or civil.
Any kind of personal matters when human rights
are being violated. And a person comes for a consultation to human rights defenders, who give
them free advice. That is important. Human rights defenders can represent the interests
of such a person in court.
And there is a somewhat different idea of human rights defenders. These are people who, how shall I put it…
making use of a certain age, authority, can be non-lawyers. This is
very important. That is, not the above-described groups of lawyers, but people
who raise large issues. Who speak about problems that are gradually ripening in the country. And
such questions, strangely enough, are not raised by lawyers. When a large problem matures,
people from other professions begin to think about it.
— Technicians?
— Often precisely technicians. And they too will be human rights defenders. Let us take Andrei
Sakharov, for example. A technician. A physicist. He was not a lawyer.
But he went to the trials of dissidents. And his very appearance at a trial already
meant something. He gave interviews on these topics to foreign correspondents.
Or let us take Oleg Orlov, who was released in an exchange not long ago. He is not a lawyer either.
He is a biologist. Many such examples can be given.
And I was not a lawyer either. I was a physicist. But when I began to think about what needed
to be done and how, together with a group of people I came up with the idea that it was necessary to create the
“Memorial” society, which would immortalize the memory of millions who had died, gather facts about them, and speak about them.
It seemed to me that this was the most important thing to do in the process of perestroika,
which Gorbachev had announced, in relation to freedoms and so on.
The fact is that, unlike many of my colleagues, I think that “Memorial” was
a political organization. It was the first political organization in the Soviet Union. It was not registered in that sense.
Just as now, for example, Boris Nadezhdin appears without being registered either.
It is similar.
We had a group of ten people who united around this idea. This was in
1987. And at first the desire was simple. It was written down by us: create a monument,
create a library, create an archive.
— Simple human wishes.
— Yes. Where did we turn? Naturally, to Gorbachev, to the CPSU Central Committee,
understanding that if we were to trust him, then he was the one who should do such a fundamental thing.
I myself did not believe in him right away. But when he freed Sakharov, when talk began
about freeing political prisoners, then I believed him.
After that we approached him with our letter. We did not think that this would
become a broad movement. We had no idea that this was possible. But when we began collecting
signatures around this appeal, it turned out that tens of thousands were
ready to sign. Without any internet. And then the question arose: what exactly is being created?
A professional group of lawyers and historians who will gather facts,
interview families? Which is what “Memorial” later did successfully, when family
chronicles and so on were created. Or can it be a political organization?
I am convinced that this was the first political organization in the USSR, which appeared when
there was no other party except the CPSU. There were as yet no public
opponents of the communists, but the “Memorial” movement already existed.
— May I suggest a clarification? “Memorial,” after all, was not originally a political
project. It was rather like a tricolor? Where one component is human (memory),
the second is human rights-related, and only after that political…
— Well, of course! First and foremost, this is a humanist idea. But if you look at
today, then now everything humanist is opposition to Putin.
The main opposition to him is humanism. Sometimes it is practically impossible
to separate the political from the human rights-related.
Agree / Disagree — 100% agree
I left “Memorial” early — in 1990 I was a deputy of parliament — of the Supreme Soviet. But in its creation
I played this role. During the creation we had disputes. Who would enter the
initiative group? There were historians there. At some point Arseny Roginsky appeared,
who had gone to prison for the same idea. He came and said: “Who are you? We
were supposed to create ‘Memorial.’” “Sorry,” we moved over, “sit down.” In the end it was he
who headed “Memorial.” And that was right.
Later, already in the 1990s, I had disputes with the same Lyudmila Mikhailovna
Alexeyeva and Yura Orlov, when “Democratic Russia” had played its role, and
Galina Starovoitova was its last leader. Then from the fragments of the political movement
“Democratic Russia” we began creating the human rights organization
“For Human Rights.” We argued about this with Lyudmila Mikhailovna… We were friends then,
and later too. But she opposed it very sharply. And Orlov said
that I was making a mistake by creating a human rights movement out of a political organization.
And it seems to me that in the struggle against a totalitarian regime, human rights defenders already play a political role.
That is already politics.
— So it turns out that the wording about “political activity,” which
Putin’s people introduced into the law on “foreign agents” back in the day,
was not accidental.
Reference
• Quotations from Federal Law No. 255-FZ of 14.07.2022 (as amended on 21.04.2025) “On control over the
activities of persons under foreign influence”:
“Among the types of activity in the course of which a person may be recognized
as a foreign agent are political activity, the targeted collection of information
in the field of the military and military-technical activity of the Russian
Federation… as well as the dissemination of messages and materials intended for an unlimited circle
of persons and (or) participation in the creation of such messages and
materials.”
“Activity is recognized as political regardless of the purposes and objectives stated in the
founding documents, other documents of the person, and regardless of whether
such activity is aimed at achieving socially beneficial goals.”
“Political activity is carried out in the following forms:
- participation in the organization and conduct of public events in the form of meetings,
rallies, demonstrations, marches, or pickets, or in various
combinations of these forms, organization and conduct of public debates, discussions,
speeches; - participation in activities aimed at obtaining a certain result
in elections, a referendum, in observing elections or a referendum,
forming election commissions and referendum commissions, and in the activities of
political parties; - public appeals to public authorities, their officials,
as well as other actions influencing the activity of those bodies and persons, including
those aimed at adopting, amending, or repealing laws or other
normative legal acts; - dissemination, including with the use of modern information technologies,
of opinions about decisions made by public authorities and the policies they
pursue; - shaping socio-political views and beliefs, including
through conducting public opinion polls and publishing their results
or conducting other sociological research; - involving citizens, including minors, in the activities
specified in points 1–5 of this part; - financing the activities specified in points 1–6 of this part.”
“Political activity does not include activity in the field of science,
culture, art, healthcare, prevention and protection of citizens’ health,
social services, social support and protection of citizens, protection of human life,
family, motherhood, fatherhood and childhood, traditional
family values, social support for people with disabilities, promotion of a healthy
lifestyle, physical culture and sports, protection of plant and animal life,
charitable activity, if the corresponding activity
does not contradict the national interests of the Russian Federation, the foundations
of public legal order of the Russian Federation, and other values protected
by the Constitution of the Russian Federation.”
— The struggle against a totalitarian regime… I now live in a democratic country
(after leaving the Russian Federation, Lev Ponomarev lives and works in France. — Republic). In
a democratic country. Here human rights defenders cooperate with the authorities. They, as it were,
improve the liberal-democratic authorities that win elections honestly.
Here no one accuses anyone of rigging elections. Perhaps there are some
individual cases, but it is not systemic.
— The history of democracy there is somewhat different. And it is warmer there. They are
kinder. More active.
— That is true. And human rights defenders interact with the authorities. With
political power. They interact, they help. Of course, they criticize when there is some mistake. There is
no advocacy for dismantling this political system. They help. And there are shortcomings here too.
I wrote about this not long ago.
But the struggle against a totalitarian regime is a struggle to destroy
the totalitarian regime. Not people. Because it violates practically all
rights. Everything is connected there.
Agree / Disagree — 100% agree
So, about my personal foreign-agent status. My organization defended
large groups of the population. For example, Jehovah’s Witnesses**.
Reference
• In Russia, on April 20, 2017, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation recognized
the Administrative Center of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Russia and all 395 local
organizations as extremist and liquidated them, citing the law on combating
extremism; as a result, the activity of believers was effectively
criminalized, mass searches and criminal cases under Article 282.2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation began. According to human rights organizations, including OVD-Info and “Memorial,” by the middle of the 2020s, more than 700 people had faced
criminal prosecution, more than 300 had been convicted, and dozens
received real prison terms.
— I remember well how the musician Fyodor Chistyakov left for the United States because of this.
He is a Jehovah’s Witness.
— We immediately fought this major problem, when the authorities began acting against
200,000 people in an absolutely unlawful way.
Another major case was “The Network Case”*. There were many young people in that case.
We helped. We found lawyers, looked for money for the defense.
Reference
• “The Network Case” was a criminal case launched by the FSB in Russia in 2017
against a group of anarchists and anti-fascists from Penza and St. Petersburg,
who were accused of creating a terrorist community and preparing a violent seizure of power;
the accused themselves said they had been tortured, pressured, and framed through fabricated evidence.
In the “Network” case, at least 10 people were convicted, and seven
received sentences in the main trial, with prison terms
ranging from 6 to 18 years. Human rights organizations
called the case fabricated and pointed to numerous
violations in the investigation.
And this was already the state fighting youth.
I think that is why I ended up on the list of “foreign agents” among the first.
— So how do you perceive the news that your homeland is searching for you?
Is there any particular emotion?
— You know, strangely enough, no. There are more serious sudden pieces of news. For example,
when they declare you a terrorist. But I expected this after I left. When I was pushed out of the country.
It was exactly then that they detained me in the metro. They tracked me down from a video. When the war began in
2022, I made a petition. Why did I do it? It is surprising. I still do not understand.
Someone from above helped me, although I am not a religious person. Someone helped me… And that petition was the main thing that worked against me at that time. They were already actively persecuting me then for all sorts of trifles. And not only trifles…
At one point they told me: “There will be an arrest on Thursday.” Different people told me this. Some
“investigator” called me. He said: “I am an investigator, I trust you…” He also said it would be on Thursday.
— How interesting.
— The Thursday idea was launched from different sources. And then suddenly, in the metro, the cops
come up, click their heels: “Lev Alexandrovich, you have been declared wanted on the federal list.
We are obliged to deliver you to the police station.” I managed to call a lawyer there.
We sat there until evening. Then they let me go.
— Silently?
— You could say that, but not entirely silently. They said they would take me to the prosecutor’s office. And they
took me somewhere. They mentioned the Northwestern District…
— In the card about your wanted status published by our colleagues at “Mediazona” there is
the phone number of the duty unit of the Interior Ministry directorate for Moscow’s Northwestern District.*
— I once had an apartment there. I was registered there. So it turns out this came back to me four years later?
That is, they were taking me to Moscow’s Northwestern District for four years.
— That is funny, by the way.
— Yes. They were taking me there for four years. And only now have they finally brought me there.
After the detention, the police took me, turned, and drove to the prosecutor’s office of the Central District.
A prosecutor’s office employee came out and invited me to come to the prosecutor’s office a few days later.
The claim was banal. I had not put a signature.
— The foreign-agent disclaimer?
— Yes. I was guilty because I had not put the foreign-agent disclaimer on the petition! It never even occurred to
me when the war began (smiles). That is how they explained it to me in the
prosecutor’s office. Of course, it looked absurd. It is possible they changed their minds. I was calling
different places. I wanted to find out what the matter was. They released me. But now, four years later, they have
finally brought me to the Northwestern District! I want to understand under which article.
— Judging by practice, there is no period after which this can become known in such
situations.
— They can hide it. Especially since the case is lying under the table. No one forces them
to report publicly. No one punishes them for violating procedures and deadlines… On the
other hand, it gave a push for me to leave. Probably they did not want to get involved with someone of such an age…
Although there had already been many elderly scientists behind bars…
— It is hard to understand their logic. Look how long Shlosberg remained
at liberty. Until December 2025. Since then he has been in pretrial detention.*
— They really grabbed Shlosberg by the throat, as they say…
— He is keeping his spirits up. He describes every centimeter of his prison
life. He documents the observable details in that museum.
— Really? By the way, I can speak for myself. I have been under administrative arrest several times.
So I roughly understand what it looks like. But when you are sitting there for a month,
two, a year, of course you need some kind of creative occupation. At least something…
— What would you say to the investigator and the judge who declared you wanted?
— I do not know. First I need to read what exactly they declared me wanted for. Maybe it is
an attempted murder of someone. Whatever they came up with there…
— Given the scale of paranoia in the Kremlin, they could now draw up absolutely anything?
— Anything. In recent weeks and even days, Russia has moved toward
1937. Everyone has long been talking about it. The opposition has long talked about the year 37. But so far there
still had not been anything resembling that very 37. I mean mass reprisals, mass killings.
— But if you look at the war in Ukraine, mass reprisals are happening there
every day.
— They are grinding people down there, yes… In that sense you are absolutely right. One can say
that the year 37, in terms of destroying one’s own population, has arrived in a completely new
sphere. Not in relation to political opponents, but through the desire of the people themselves.
— Do you really think so? Many ordinary people are simply deceived. The authorities tell
people things. People believe the authorities. And they follow the authorities. There is a great deal of that too.
— Of course, people are in that paranoia, which comes with propaganda. Generally speaking,
people under the influence of total propaganda change. And all this has been studied
by psychologists. There were all those experiments where students were divided into detainees and
abusers. Physical violence was not allowed, but people were worked on through threats,
through psychological influence. And at some point people changed. Some
began to feel like bosses. Others wilted. They began to believe that they were
really bad people.
In fact, a human being is a very delicate instrument. He can be
reprogrammed. It is not that difficult. But not everyone.
Agree / Disagree — 75% agree
Every human being is complex. In every person there is aggression from birth.
And quite a lot of it. But there is also empathy from birth. Yet there are people in whom
there is no empathy at all, or almost none. And I can say this about Putin.
I can prove it if necessary.
— Basically, that has been proven. Nemtsov spoke clearly about it.
— Yes. Some people have enormous empathy. By the way, among Jehovah’s Witnesses, men
are forbidden to take up arms. It is forbidden by their rules. It is hard to imagine
that someone could be driven into such a religion…
Indeed, one and the same person may be very aggressive depending on
circumstances, may commit violence depending on circumstances. And at the same time he may be
very empathetic toward other people. My theory is that people with a great inborn
capacity for empathy in harsh countries become human rights defenders.
— We have spoken about paranoia, empathy, Putin. When did you realize
that he was ready to shed blood? After what moment did that become clear to you?
— It was clear to me almost immediately. The apartment bombings in Moscow. I later joined
a public commission of inquiry.
We examined everything very carefully. At a certain point we saw that there were not enough facts. There was a
general conviction, but not enough facts. Then, when a lawyer came to us, a former
FSB employee — I will not name him — he said: “Yes, I see that there are many facts.
Moreover, I recognize one person who may have been connected with the FSB.”
And after the “Ryazan sugar” incident it became clear that there had been an order.
From Putin or not from Putin — we do not know. But most likely it was the authorities doing this on orders from the authorities.
Agree / Disagree — 100% agree
Putin in 2020 again became president of Russia. A year later we held the “First
All-Russian Emergency Congress in Defense of Human Rights.” The title is long, but
every word there speaks for itself. The congress lasted two days at the Cosmos cinema. It was
very representative. We never again managed to hold such a representative event.
For two days the hall for 500 people was overflowing. There were almost 200
correspondents. And if you look at the documents adopted there,
everything was predicted there. Except the war with Ukraine. That is, we saw a huge
catastrophe. That is why the congress was emergency. Keeping Putin in power was
a catastrophe. We were fully aware of what had happened.
— The political prisoner mentioned above in that same year said this about the
State Duma elections: “The 2021 elections are a referendum on war and peace.” And before
that he had consistently noted the preparation of state institutions, as
it later turned out, precisely for war, including the 2020 zeroing-out of the Constitution.
— He is a fine fellow, yes. But the war began with Georgia. There too the
circumstances and the evidence were fabricated to say that Georgia had struck first… And even
earlier, in Russia, persecution of children of Georgian nationality had begun
on a quasi-fascist principle. They began compiling lists of them… We went to Pushkin
Square with signs saying “I am Georgian.” We did that because fascist ideas had already
begun.
After his first arrival in the Kremlin, he was surrounded only by liberals. He listened to them.
Yavlinsky went to him. And Chubais enlightened him at that time. And a congress of civil society was conceived
in the Kremlin — the Civic Forum. Very many human rights defenders
agreed to it. Everyone was interested in seeing what the Presidential Administration had devised.
I was categorically against it. I was almost alone.
Why was I against it? Yes, a civic forum can be held if the president is ready
to be friendly with civil society. And I said it would be possible to hold
our own human rights congress. And then invite Putin there. But it is the congress that
should invite Putin there. The congress should have our agenda.
He, by the way, proposed some roundtables in advance. He came to “Memorial.”
“Memorial” went to that Civic Forum. And in the first year there was something there. There were
indeed some roundtables.
— Do you remember how he later tried to be friendly with Lyudmila Mikhailovna?
⤢
Putin congratulates Lyudmila Alexeyeva on her 90th birthday, 2017
Photo from Kremlin.ru
— Yes. He was always circling around her a little. Pretending respect. As far as
I know, he later said: “I can’t understand her at all. I can’t understand her.” Those words of his
were later relayed to me. But I don’t know whether they are authentic…
— Given that his fork is of a different design and does not fit into a human socket,
it sounds very much like the truth.
— Something like that, yes… In general, we understood almost everything about him
almost immediately. As for protection, there was nothing to understand. But our politicians, whom
we had brought to power, supported Putin in the presidential elections. The
Union of Right Forces supported him too. I later spoke with key people in that campaign.
First of all, I condemned them then. Harshly. And I said publicly that this would be
their most shameful act…
— They will always itch when you remind them of it?
— Yes. But not all of them. Although Boris Nemtsov told me that he was against it.
— I remember him campaigning for Putin.
— He did campaign. But he told me: “It was the party’s decision. I was against it. Ira
Khakamada said she was against it. But the middle level broke us…”
I remember telling all of them directly, when I saw their posters saying that
the Union of Right Forces supported Putin: “Guys, this is betrayal. You are traitors.” But
I received a clear answer much later, quite recently: “When we saw that he would
become president anyway, we wanted to influence him. And that is why we decided to support him too”…
Agree / Disagree
— Many people today will call that naïveté.
— Yes. And in the very next parliamentary elections, in 2003, he did not
let them in (laughs). You know how it is in history? There are inevitable events.
Inevitable events in large countries. But the appearance of Putin as an individual in history
might not have happened. Why? Because, despite all the difficulties, in 1990
a peaceful democratic revolution took place, when “Democratic Russia” defeated the communists
in the elections. And then Yeltsin,
our representative, was elected chairman of the Supreme Soviet of the RSFSR. Our alliance with Yeltsin was inevitable
for us. Because we had common values. And life in general showed that the alliance with Yeltsin was correct.
— A little earlier you spoke about liberals wanting to influence Putin at the start. Did you
try to influence Yeltsin?
— Absolutely! We influenced him enormously in the first three years. Very strongly. I met
with him many times. But there was also a whole prehistory to that. How did he even
arise for us? He ended up on the list of those whom people wanted to see on the Council
of “Memorial”…
I am again returning to “Memorial.” But all of this is connected. At least in my
life. So then we came up with the following move when, in 1988, the question arose of a monument
to the victims of repression and of creating an archive. That required financial means.
We understood that the communists would not be especially eager about it. We understood that at some point
we would have to raise money ourselves. And we thought: but who would entrust it to us? Who are we? I remember
that mostly young guys started this work — just over 30 years old.
At that time I was already nearly 50. A doctor of sciences, yes. But unknown to the country.
And we came up with the idea of polling people on Pushkin Square — whom did they see on the Council,
in the leadership of “Memorial”? That is, we undertook that experiment. The thing is that in the late
1980s Pushkin Square was a kind of permanent rally.
People came there and talked about many things. They talked, in fact, about democracy, about
“Memorial,” about those who had died, about repression. And we simply polled there
several hundred people. Our people stood there with sheets of paper and asked: “Whom do you see
in the leadership of ‘Memorial’? Whom could you entrust money to for building
a monument?” A person wrote down a surname. Cutting off that list at 15 or 17, I no
longer remember, it turned out that both
Sakharov and Yeltsin would enter the public council of “Memorial.”
Do you understand? It was not artificially that we chose Yeltsin.
— The most democratic story available at the time?
— Maximally, absolutely. Just imagine that now on Pushkin Square people are being
asked who should be president of Russia? And what would
happen in the results? It is frightening to think about.
From that list we wrote letters to everyone saying: “You have been chosen by the people for the Council
of ‘Memorial,’ congratulations.” The only person who replied with a refusal was the same
Solzhenitsyn. At that time he was in America. In general, he too, I would say, answered correctly: “But
who are you anyway? I don’t know you. I have spent my whole life building this memorial,
this monument to the dead. My whole life consists in that. And who are you?” (laughs).
All the others came to the first meeting. Yeltsin, it seems, came to the second one, not the
first.
We held the first meeting of the public council at the Institute of Cinematography
near Pushkin Square, in a little lane there. My God… Many of the people with whom we started
are no longer alive… These councils were not held often. They did not deal with the technical
management of “Memorial,” the collection of documents, the preparation of
the conference, statements. We did all that. We were called the working group. But
these people were responsible for us. If we made a mistake, they would correct us.
You know how they say, “founding fathers.” They were fathers, but they were not the founders
of “Memorial.” Sometimes people write incorrectly that Sakharov created “Memorial.” Technically speaking,
he did not create it. If one approaches it ideologically, then yes, one can say that he created it. It was
precisely he who, before he was sent into exile in Gorky, traveled around the country and attended trials
where people were convicted for political reasons. But he was invited into the
“Memorial” organization. I invited him. And he came.
— Thirty-five years later you continued to defend human rights, but no longer in relation
to events of the past, rather to the present that had come. Not much was written about it, but your work on the so-called
“Irkutsk case,” it seems to me, is fundamentally important. The story of the torture conveyor belt that surfaced in 2020. What news about this work is worth making public?
Reference
• The events in Penal Colony IK-15 in Angarsk in April 2020 were classified by the authorities
as “mass riots,” but human rights defenders believe
that this was a protest by prisoners against violence by the Russian FSIN. According to
human rights defenders, more than 100 people became victims of torture, officially
around 35 were recognized as victims; at the same time, in the “riot” case, around
19 defendants are involved, among them, for example, Khumaid Khaidayev and Aiyrash Saryglar.
At the same time, in the torture cases, only a limited number of defendants from among
staff and “activists” were prosecuted, and human rights defenders point to a
disproportion of punishments compared with the scale of the alleged violence.
— This case has already been going on for four years. It is clear that the people involved can no longer communicate with me
about it. But I am indirectly informed. The thing is that at some point they declared the Sakharov
Institute an “undesirable organization,” so there must be no contact
with us. And there is none. But my colleagues in Russia continue this work.
The “Irkutsk case” became astonishing even for me. At one time we had a brochure
called “Torture Zones.” A story about torture zones in Russia, where people are tortured. I want to
explain to your readers what a “torture zone” is, what we mean by it, because
individual instances of torture happen everywhere. A person can almost be beaten to death in any colony. It is
possible. There are very few places where that does not happen. We would have needed a separate brochure about where it
definitely does not happen. And that is even more difficult work — to find a colony where
people are treated like human beings. It is simply a very difficult task. One must have many
staff and verify many facts. But to say that in almost
every colony there have been cases of murder, violence, rape — that can be said definitely. Almost every colony.
And I must say that in the new Russia this situation has worsened. First of all, the traditions
that existed in Soviet times were practically inherited. Because
the same people remained working in the colonies. Human rights defenders worked, the Public Monitoring Commission
was created. And they were, as it were, somewhat put in their place
in the late 1990s and early 2000s.
But since people retained their habits of violence, discovering all this
still remained a very difficult task. So despite the knowledge that torture happens almost everywhere,
what we encountered in Irkutsk was completely unexpected.
Yes, even before that I knew that SIZO No. 1 there was a torture zone. It was known that many
so-called “developers” worked there — people who rape, beat, kill,
extract testimony. Moreover, I knew that these specialists in torture were sent out
to other regions. I understood that Irkutsk was a difficult place. But what we came up against
was astonishing. I will not tell in detail how we uncovered it, how we entered the case.
We were strongly blocked; our lawyers were not allowed in.
But we managed.
I wrote to the prosecutor’s office asking that a criminal case be opened, but it did not work out. But
Tatyana Nikolaevna Moskalkova supported us. Whatever many bad things may be said about her,
I can say many good things about her as a human rights defender. She is, of course, a product of this political
system, without question. But she did not become a human rights defender by accident. Still,
by the will of her soul she helps people. And she did help. Especially before the war.
I was an expert on her commission. Lyudmila Mikhailovna was an expert on her commission. She
invited us there.
Prisoners’ relatives told us that no fewer than
fifty people had been raped there then. Some named the figure 100. The
scientific term is sexualized torture. This is humiliation of a person, serious physical trauma…
And now we already know that all of this was artificially done by the head
of Angarsk Colony No. 15. He needed to conceal theft, and he burned down the industrial
zone there. In order to explain this, he needed to provoke unrest. And he managed to provoke
supposed unrest. They lined up the whole colony outside. They kept them that way all day. People
stood there. And they could not provoke them into attacking the security forces.
They stood there and endured. And it was April in Siberia. Then they began
dousing them with cold water, and then someone threw a stone. One cannot say that the prisoners all
rushed to smash everything. That did not happen.
But a composite regiment of FSIN and Interior Ministry employees was called in. 200 or 300 people entered
the colony. As they sometimes say, “fully geared up.” And these armed men began beating everyone
with batons, stripping people, throwing them onto the asphalt. They struck people directly in the head.
They beat them monstrously. Then they threw them, like logs, into several prison vans and took them
to two SIZOs. The task was to make them confess that they had committed the arson. A list
with the names of those who had supposedly started the riot — that is, those against whom
testimony had to be given — was quickly compiled. And in those two SIZOs, the prisoners were trained by violence
to name the people they were supposed to name.
I must say that people were raped many times. I am convinced that this
was unnecessary. People are such that often it is enough to frighten them or
use violence to a lesser degree and they will still give the required testimony. But no. There,
they tormented them for a long time and continuously, to the fullest extent.
Agree / Disagree
— As you tell this, I remember my own personal experience. I was tortured in a police station
in my youth. One night only, but they tortured me. A hippie fell into the hands of drunken cops
in the provinces on city day, when somewhere someone had broken something, and in their hands was a long-haired guy in sneakers. Do you understand where the roots of this sadism come from?
— First, Soviet traditions that were never eradicated in the 1990s.
Plus the decay that appeared in prisons when money began to play a larger role. And
the scale of that decay was much worse than in Soviet times.
And then there was a stitching together of criminal traditions, as they say there, “the law is the taiga,” with
police violence, state violence. The thieves-in-law stopped preserving whatever
human element there may have been in their order. Of course, in their order there was also that
with which one cannot reconcile oneself: the humiliation of people who were lowered in status. One cannot say
that I support that, but still there had been some less savage traditions.
— So it turns out that in the 1990s and later people did not do enough?
— Of course they did not do enough. Tradition is something that has to be worked on for decades.
And then it became even worse because money appeared…
So Angarsk colony was neither “red” nor “black.” A “black” zone means a criminal order.
In a “black” zone, for example, drugs are forbidden. There is a very harsh struggle
against that. But here drugs circulated, and money too. Where there are drugs, there is always
big money. In the end, we still managed to convince Moskalkova that this
had happened. I brought witnesses to her who told her that it had happened. The film “Two
Months Before Freedom” was made. There a witness speaks…
— Did anything there change for the better?
— This colony is now being closed, as far as I know. We achieved success
in punishments when it was proven that people had been tortured. Our organization represented
35 people there. Obviously, we could not find 35 lawyers; we had no money.
But even so, we proved that a crime had been committed. Most of our people succeeded in
proving that they were victims. The Investigative Committee worked on their cases and sided with us.
Reference
• As a result of the proceedings related to the events at IK-15 in Angarsk by 2025–2026,
in the “mass riots” case, 12 prisoners were sentenced to terms ranging from 5.5 years
to 21 years of imprisonment (of the original up to 19 defendants, one died,
up to six dropped out, including for military service — these data are not fixed in the verdict).
For episodes of torture in SIZO-1 and other institutions, at least 4 people
(according to various estimates, up to 6–8) were convicted and sentenced from 6.5 to 17.5 years
for violence against approximately 7–11 victims. Former colony head
Andrei Vereshchak received 4 years of imprisonment (in some sources
a sentence of up to 10 years was mentioned).
According to human rights defenders and 2025 medical examinations, injuries
were documented in more than 400 prisoners, including fractures, bruises, and abrasions;
the torture included beatings, tying people up, dousing them with cold water, electric shocks,
and violence with objects. The torture was carried out by colony staff and cellmates; some of the victims were not officially recognized as injured parties, and some
staff members received minimal terms or were released early. Witnesses and human rights defenders
recorded testimonies and filed complaints, which made it possible
to bring some of the “developers” and SIZO staff to justice.
Thus, according to estimates, at least 17 and possibly up to 21 people were punished;
the harshest sentences were imposed on prisoners in the “riot” case, while
responsibility for the torture remains limited and fragmentary.
The latest confirmed major decisions date to 2025; in 2026 no new comparable verdicts were recorded in open sources, although
some separate proceedings may have continued.
— At what level does sanctioned brutality begin? Regional authorities, the federal center?
— The governor had absolutely nothing to do with it. This was inside the colony. Perhaps
the minister of justice. I remember that the minister of justice said then that he knew
who had ordered it. But he knows everything anyway. The list for torture must have come from
someone above. Then a simple scheme starts working. The “developers,” that is also prisoners — scoundrels,
who perform the role of the administration’s henchmen…
— The scheme is clear. But who is directing it? The level of ministries, special services?
— The atmosphere directs it. It happens when everything becomes permitted
for these people. Permitted means one can humiliate, rape, and so on.
— Let us return to the news. “More than 70,000 rubles in utility debt are being forcibly collected from foreign agent Lev Ponomarev,” modern Russian media report immediately after the news of your wanted status. Did you see that?
— No. I do not know that. I do not know how to comment on it… Maybe it is true. I left
very quickly in 2022. I certainly was not thinking about utility payments then.
— Lev Alexandrovich, when one hears your surname, one word comes to mind —
“human rights defender.” After that, thoughts about the living person named Ponomarev
as a rule do not go much further for outside observers. If it is not a secret, what music
did you listen to when you were young, what films did you like, what books?
— How should I put it… I have more or less standard ideas about art.
In my youth I spent all my time on physics. I spent a lot of time trying to get into the
Physics and Technology Institute. I was occupied with that all the time (smiles).
— No time for dancing?
— No time for dancing, yes. Of course, I read a great deal of whatever could be read. I remember
that in those years there were little magazines devoted to contemporary art in the West.
They made their way into the Soviet Union. I loved reading them, looking at those pictures. That is, I loved
different kinds of art. Russian classical painters are close to me too.
And then suddenly, somewhere in my early thirties, I tried painting portraits of my friends.
And I liked it wildly!
— You took up a brush?
— Yes, I took up a brush. I understood that I could not paint in oils… I
had no drawing skills. I could not draw. And I still cannot. I cannot draw a cat.
And I cannot draw a dog. Nobody! But oil helps correct mistakes. You just paint over it, and
everything is wonderful. And I understood that what interested me wildly was making the portrait resemble
the person, so that there was some hint of their character in it.
I have a self-portrait of my own, the first one I painted. I have portraits of my friends. In
all, I made six such portraits.
If I had free time now… I keep thinking: if I am already going to work less actively
in the public sphere, then I will paint portraits. I keep waiting for that moment, when it comes.
— Who will be the first?
— My relatives, people close to me. I have portraits of my children from my second marriage.
I have a portrait of my second wife. I want to paint the people close to me…
— May I wish that you find time to calmly do what you want to do?
— You may. Thank you.
— By the way, about your personal creativity. You were professionally engaged
in physics. Where can your work be seen now, if it can be seen at all?
— Oh come on… I could not even say the title of my doctoral dissertation anymore. And there is nothing
classified there. But indeed, my institute was classified in Soviet times. It belonged to the Ministry
of Medium Machine Building. That was the ministry dealing with atomic energy. Formally
the institute was classified. When various kinds of freedoms appeared, the First Department
stopped playing the key role. And now everything has returned. Now scientists from my institute
will no longer go to the West without first going through a First Department check.
I remember that the first time I went to Poland in Soviet times. I had to go through the district party committee.
It was funny. Some people sat there asking questions.
— What question do you remember?
— Oh, I do not remember. They asked all sorts of nonsense. It was already 1989.
I was already one of the creators of “Memorial,” but they let me go.
— How would you assess the effect of Putin’s 26 years in power on Russian science?
— I cannot say. In 1990 I lost all connection with physics (laughs).
Again, there was no time. But I can say that in the late 1990s and in the 2000s our science
had open interaction with Western science. We had our own Nobel laureate, other
laureates from Russia. A great thing! For science, the doors must be
open; borders should play no role.
Now the further it goes, the more Russia loses. We grit our teeth, but
we are losing. Putin is driving us into a ghetto. Into a scientific ghetto, into a cultural
ghetto, and so on… All this will yet come back to haunt us…
Agree / Disagree — 100% agree
— How fair is the idea that Galina Vasilyevna Starovoitova’s lustration project
might have saved the country from its current condition?
— The idea of lustration itself is correct. But there was no one to carry out lustration. Boris
Nikolayevich Yeltsin was a member of the Central Committee. He was one of our leaders. In the movement
“Democratic Russia,” more than 80% were communists. They said former communists.
Then they became communists again when DemRossiya lost influence and split.
The desire for lustration was beautifully formulated, but it was not feasible.
Agree / Disagree — 100% agree
Though now I think that in a limited form, if at that time Galya had been chair…
Galya was co-chair of the “Democratic Russia” movement. We always had co-chairmanship.
Literally six months before Galina’s death we already gave her the chairmanship of the
“Democratic Russia” party. We gave her leadership in the party because she was a deputy, whereas
we had long ceased to be deputies. We were doing human rights work. Galina was more radical
than I was. And perhaps in that sense she was right that she took a more radical attitude
toward the authorities…
On the other hand, she was Yeltsin’s personal adviser.
— Not for long.
— Not very long, but she was. In the 1990s we all nevertheless tried to build
democracy. And more or less it worked. But there was a problem — the Chechen war.
Galya and I together persuaded Yeltsin that the war still had to be stopped. Boris Nemtsov
played a huge role here. He brought an enormous number of signatures from people in Nizhny Novgorod
against the war. The democrats did influence Yeltsin’s decisions.
First. Until the end of the 1990s, there was freedom of speech in Russia. Yeltsin, by the way, was a
very professional politician who could go in for compromises. In politics, the main thing
is the ability to preserve one’s line and go in for compromises while preserving one’s line.
I remember that both Galina and I objected to removing Gaidar. But Yeltsin
understood better than we did that maneuvering was necessary. And he brought in Chernomyrdin.
Chernomyrdin suited that time better, that situation which existed in Russia then. So,
freedom of speech definitely existed in the 1990s. Everyone remembers the show “Kukly”
and how Yeltsin was portrayed there. I know how angry Yeltsin would get. He got angry,
but he did nothing.
And second. In the 1990s there was pluralism. Yeltsin, while preserving his democratic
face and convictions, was forced to interact with an already communist parliament. And he did not
disperse it but interacted with it. Therefore democracy remained until the end of the 1990s.
And here we return to the theme of the role of personality in history. If instead of Putin
there had been another person, at least not a chekist, then perhaps we would have got out of it in the 2000s.
Especially since oil became more expensive and everything else. It would have been a completely different story.
Agree / Disagree — 100% agree
But two factors came together. A person absolutely without empathy. A very frightening person,
I would say. The further it goes, the more we see how frightening he is. He is already dangerous
not only for our country but for all humanity. And he got there by accident.
The second factor was the betrayal of my colleagues, who supported him. Today
I use the word “betrayal,” but it was more short-sightedness. At that time they got carried away with politics.
They thought they would influence him. They were mistaken. A dramatic mistake.
— At the same time, all attempts at peaceful protest in the 2010s did not work.
But you remain a supporter precisely of peaceful protest — a bloodless, unarmed change of power. You said this again just now on one of the broadcasts. But it
does not work in Russia…
— Violence does not work. That is fundamental. Seize power with weapons? Here, abroad,
some colleagues are trying to push such ideas. But people with weapons in their hands,
having gained power, do not later lay down those weapons. It will not be possible afterward to control them.
Someone who took power with weapons in his hands — will he later obey democrats?
Now this is not very popular. And thank God.
— Listen to what is said at various forums where many of those who left before you speak.
Now they talk only about that. Is that why they do not invite you there?
— Do you mean Kasparov’s forum? I sorted things out with Kasparov* long ago (laughs). I wrote
that he was an alien person for Russia. I wrote this publicly. He replied with something similar.
We do not communicate. Though in the 1990s we were side by side. We created democratic
structures together… You know, this happens quite naturally. I believe that Russia attacked
Ukraine and is the aggressor. But still we will not be able to fully take
the position of the Ukrainians. Because many Ukrainians would wish for Russia’s destruction. And many
have the right to wish that, because their relatives were killed, because civilians have died and are dying…
And I want Russia to survive. And I believe in a great future
for our country. I believe in it. I believe that Russia will be a democratic country.
It is simply that Russia is lagging
on this path toward liberal democracy, freedoms, and everything else. It
is lagging. Iran is lagging even more…
Agree / Disagree
— Isn’t Russia now catching up with Iran?
— In some sense, yes. There are many similarities. But in general countries do not move
simultaneously toward the bright future of humanity. Not simultaneously. There will always
be problems in that bright future because every person individually is ambiguous. Every one.
Close people know this better, but every human being makes mistakes in relation to those close to them.
Every person is capable of that. And conversely, in every person there is empathy, love.
And in every person throughout life there is a struggle between these two
directions. And if a person is unlucky, he becomes a supporter of Putin. When his
negative emotions, negative moods find an outlet in threatening the whole world, in
those absurd slogans of theirs, like “if there is no Russia, why preserve the world?”
They constantly discuss the possibility of nuclear war. They say that if Russia — in
their understanding of the word — does not exist, then let all humanity not exist either. All this speaks
of these people’s mental illnesses.
The fact that Russia found itself in the hands of mentally ill people is
terrible. And here there is a certain responsibility on our part. Not guilt. Responsibility lies with us.
Especially because we are people engaged in public activity.
All my life I have tried to correspond to what I am trying to fight for.
— Is there a decision that was made and that you regret? And one that was never made.
— I already mentioned Galina Starovoitova when you asked me about lustration. I think
that we should have carried out lustration in a limited form. I think it would have passed in 1991.
And Yeltsin would have supported it. Namely, people who worked in the USSR KGB, such
as Putin, should not have been allowed into elected positions. That is something we could have passed in 1991. In that form lustration could have passed.
But there was no one to implement other variants. Whom to lustrate — that is clear.
Many people could have been. But there were no people who could do it…
— Why did Boris Nikolayevich not do this in 1991?
— A narrow lustration of that sort, only for KGB officers, simply did not occur to
anyone then. It only occurred to me not long ago. A narrow lustration for KGB officers,
especially if they had worked in certain ideological areas, let us say. I regret
that this did not happen. People who had previously persecuted dissent and imprisoned people
should not have been allowed into elected office.
— Do you really believe that we will live long enough to see a Russia where all this will be cleaned out?
— Yes, I am sure of it. We are simply late. We need to take a calmer attitude toward the course
of history. Of course I too worry about people close to me, about friends. Especially when they
become victims of this violence… But liberal democracy is actually a very recent invention
of humanity. I have a big article on this subject.
This invention is only 200 years old! Humanity itself has existed for millennia.
Individual empires lived for hundreds of years. And here only 200. Almost
simultaneously in Europe and the United States, when the Constitution was adopted there and the separation
of powers introduced. At the same time, the rights of African Americans were recognized only 70 years ago! After
mass multimillion rallies for desegregation took place in the 1950s and 1960s. Only then
did African Americans receive equal rights with whites. That was very recent! And they went through it honorably. They put a full stop to it by
electing an African American president! America consistently moved along the path of liberal democracy and reached it.
— And now we are crawling back into the Middle Ages?
— That is nonsense. All this is temporary. I am sure of it. I think in America they will sort
Trump out. What Trump is doing now will lead to his losing power.
Or he will carry out a fascist coup using force and violence.
— On that subject, some experts were closely watching the actions of the migration police after
Trump’s return to the White House. But so far they are not turning into very good new stormtroopers.
— Trump’s forces are not growing stronger because there is resistance in the country. Besides
civil resistance, even Supreme Court judges appointed by Trump are now
speaking against him. That too should be noticed. And of course hundreds of thousands of people are coming out
to protest, if not millions. And across the whole country, moreover, they are speaking out against Trump.
— What prevents Russia from moving in that direction?
— There really is historical memory, imperial memory. There is even a term that I
keep forgetting…
— Imperiality?
— Another one. Forgive me for my forgetfulness and for rambling. I am giving you this interview at
Biden’s age (laughs).
— And I treat that with great respect and gratitude.
— Then write that I ask readers’ forgiveness.
— All right. I knew what I was signing up for.
— (Laughs) I remembered! Ressentiment! A wonderful word. It flies out of my head.
The Germans had ressentiment after the First World War. Fascism appeared.
They went into the Second World War. I think they would have unleashed a third under certain conditions.
But precisely because the Declaration of Human Rights appeared, because the very concept of “human rights” appeared, and that began to play an international role, among other reasons
a new ressentiment did not occur. It still exists in Germany even now. We know how difficult
political processes are there. And in the European Parliament certain deputies utter
fascist slogans… Ressentiment is a powerful thing that remains in the genes.
— Do you think that when the regime devours itself, degenerates, something
human can then appear afterward?
— That is already gradually being pushed out. Look at what is now happening with youth in
Russia. We have not touched in our conversation the latest news about various
forms of youth activity…
— Do you believe in that? So far it looks more like digital provocations on the eve
of what the Kremlin calls “parliamentary elections.”
— Maybe so. There are of course provocations there too… Listen, when in 1990 we were engaged
in public actions and held rallies of a million people, do you think
there were no provocations inside? There were. But most people were for
a peaceful transition of power and a peaceful revolution. The same is true here. Of course there are
provocateurs. But the majority of the youth who are now speaking out for rallies, for
preserving the internet in Russia, are honest people. I assure you.
— I am 44. Will I live to see a time without Putin?
— Absolutely. I am sure you will. If I myself want to live to see it,
then all the more so for you God commands it (smiles).
— The deaths of political prisoners in Russian prisons now. Just now in the SIZO in Ukhta
56-year-old Vladimir Osipov died, convicted in a case about military “fakes.” The overall count
has reached dozens over several years. What do you think about that?
— It resembles Soviet times. In the early 1930s they fought precisely against
political opponents, old Bolsheviks. Then came the kulaks. Then already mass repressions.
And the notional Bukharin is a classic political prisoner and a victim of political
persecution, while collective farmers who went out in winter into the fields to gather ears of grain while
dying of hunger seem not to stand in the same row with Bukharin. It is strange to compare them
with Bukharin, isn’t it? But that is exactly what mass political repression is. Russia
is now moving toward mass political repression. These are no longer political prisoners
as personalities, with their own views, but mass political repressions.
A person writes something in comments — and that is all. He is caught and imprisoned. And it is not
necessary that such a person even speak out against Putin’s regime. That still has to be proven.
Our task is to save these people. To raise questions about them. To get them out of prison.
That is our daily work. For example, recently in Kazakhstan we managed to suspend
the deportation of a 17-year-old boy to Russia. At the very last moment. He would definitely be imprisoned there.
He had made sharp statements. For now he has been left in
Kazakhstan. But Kazakhstan has now decided to deport people, of whom very many have arrived.
— What influences Kazakhstan’s decision more strongly — Moscow or Brussels?
— Kazakhstan, in fact, is part of PACE. Russia is not. A platform has recently appeared in PACE.
One of the tasks of this platform is to ensure that Brussels’ influence is stronger
than the influence of the chekists. So that Astana does not deport people who fled
mobilization.
— How do you see the communications shutdowns in Moscow? Is this agony or can it continue for a long time?
— I do not know. Obviously, the security of the top person plays an enormous role there.
I think that is the main reason, because there are contradictions all through that system. I think
the simple explanation about fear after Iran fits best here.
Can it continue for a long time? Let us dream a little. If there were mass actions,
they would not shoot, one hundred percent. I know the limits they set for themselves earlier,
in the 2000s…
— Back then all of them had much less blood on their hands. The norms of what is
permissible in violence have changed since then…
— The police in particular do not have very much blood on their hands. The question is whether
the police will shoot, whether the police will beat people bloody. The army is another story entirely.
There truly terrible things are happening, yes. There everyone has already smelled blood. But that is a topic
for another big conversation. I am speaking now about the police. And if many people
came out, they would not use violence. This has already happened. When we announced rallies and
knew that 40,000 to 100,000 people would come out, they approved them. They checked, saw that
100,000 would come out, and approved them. But when we spoke, say, of 10,000 and
understood that a few thousand would come out, rallies were not approved. And we ourselves
did not drag people under batons.
— In your view, under Trump, will political prisoner exchanges happen, as they still managed to do under Biden?
— I do not know; I am absolutely not inside this issue. I would very much like it to happen,
but I do not belong to the circle of people who have access to discussions of these
problems. In my view, it is hard to count on that.
Abroad today a major role is being played by the classic political position itself.
By politicians specifically. It is clear that in Russia they fear them more. In the “Anti-War Committee”***
they recognized everyone as terrorists. All of them at once, and for no clear reason. But what kind of terrorists
are they? It is obvious that the Kremlin is afraid.
— Which provocation against you harmed you the most? They tried to set you up many times,
“exposed” you, and so on.
— I do not even know… I made a provocation against myself when I made the anti-war
petition. The petition was precisely the reason I left. They persecuted me. They poured
filth on me. I remember coming to my office then. I saw employees sniffing
and walking around me (smiles). It turned out someone had poured a foul-smelling liquid on me from behind.
Thank God it was not actual shit. And I could not smell it. It happened from behind
while I was walking from the metro to the office. I had to undress and buy new clothes.
— What helps you hold on now? On “Zhivoy Gvozd” just now you mentioned
that some of those who left cannot bear it and take their own lives…
— There is such a problem, yes… Several things help me personally. First, I
remember that once before, with my friends, it already worked. I participated in creating
large structures that influenced the situation in the country. And our peaceful democratic revolution
did not happen in 1991, but in 1990, when we won the elections. Since
we managed it then, the new generation will manage it too. It is important that
the generations have now changed. The current young people have no ressentiment at all
for what was lost.
— You know better than I do the scale of the infiltration of society by those commonly
called “chekists.” How can one then believe in a repetition of what happened
almost 40 years ago in the pre-digital era?
— Nonsense! Young people do not hear them and do not see them. The young grew up in
the era of the internet. The chekists have no influence on them. I am sure of it. The chekists only search among them
for those who want to make a career through them. But people, once they fall into their embrace,
run away from them quickly. I am sure of that. And people capable of governing
will appear. Boris Nemtsov did appear, and he governed a region quite well.
Really not badly. Back then many people appeared unexpectedly. Look at who under Putin keeps
the war economy running. These are all people who grew up in the 1990s, became
professionals, received professional education. They are the ones who still run
the country. But at the same time, unfortunately, they serve the war.
— Give advice to the next young reformers so that they do not repeat your
mistakes, if they get their chance.
— In order not to repeat mistakes, one must unite. I would very much not want
leaders to appear among these people. We had no leaders, and that is why we managed
to do something. And Yeltsin was not our leader, which is funny. Yeltsin was not our leader.
He depended on us. We ensured his presidential election because there was
no other person. But he did not command us. I spoke with him for three years. I cannot
say anything bad about him. He was very attentive, not rude, and called everyone
by first name and patronymic. In that respect I am a bit rougher. I may use obscenity
sometimes. Not in the sense of swearing at someone, but simply in conversation. Yeltsin did not use
such words in conversation with us. Not a single one. Never. He was exceptionally
intelligent and polite with us.
One must work in solidarity. Only in solidarity. Do not create leaders.
Of course, I believe that Navalny died for freedom. I bow before his act as the act
of a person who died for an idea. But he hindered unification in the 2000s.
If we had united, and if he had not claimed absolute leadership, perhaps
we would not have allowed the war to happen. Perhaps. I say that fully consciously.
— Lev Alexandrovich, thank you. I did not wear you out?
— No, not at all. I want to leave a trace behind me. So here we trampled a little. Thank you.
And thanks to Republic.
Published by the “Republic” project on March 25, 2026.