This interview recording was first published on 30 December 2017 at: https://www.svoboda.org/a/28950976.html
Interviewer: Sofia Rogacheva (Софья Рогачева)
Director Alexander Sokurov , whose name is included in the list of the hundred best directors of world cinema, is known not only for his films, which have won numerous awards at prestigious international festivals. In Russia, Sokurov is known as a man of a firm social position, which he is not afraid to express publicly, to the faces of those in power, risking their displeasure.
Thus, immediately after the start of the Ukrainian conflict, Sokurov spoke out sharply against the use of military force in Ukraine, calling for respect for the desire of Ukrainians to have an independent state. In February 2017, he harshly condemned Russian television commentators, suggesting that sooner or later they would appear before the Hague Tribunal as provocateurs inciting hatred. In March 2017, at the Nika award ceremony, the director spoke in defense of schoolchildren and students who came out to protest on March 26, about the need for dialogue with them; he has also repeatedly spoken out in defense of director Oleg Sentsov, who was convicted of terrorism .
That is why our conversation with Alexander Sokurov touches on the widest range of issues - the fate of Russia, the new generation, culture, the nature of power, the need for a new model of the state.
Bolded text represents Sofia Rogacheva
— Alexander Nikolayevich (Sokurov), you so often talk about the need to talk to young people, to the authorities. Why doesn't anyone want to do this, why is the level of aggression so high in Russia?
- People treat each other differently - in America they shoot and kill more often than in our country, we don't even know what is going on in Latin America, and it's scary to think about the Arab world. Russians, whom I know and understand more, have problems largely because of our vast space - it is a very heavy burden.
— Do you think Russia should shrink and contract?
- I think it will happen on its own. There are decisions that must be taken today, otherwise we will not be able to do without force later. In state development, one should always go ten steps forward, not lagging behind. Back in 2007 I spoke about the inevitability of war with Ukraine, it was clear to me as a historian and a human being. But the country's security services probably did not understand it, in any case, the parliament, infected with global problems, did not think about it.
In fact, there is nothing complicated in Russia's situation, I have not had any questions for our politicians for a long time, I understand in which direction everything is going. I promised myself not to give any more forecasts, which no one pays attention to anyway. But I myself, as a person and as an artistic author, must prepare myself for what awaits my homeland.
If there is enough energy, intelligence, and patience to overcome challenges, Russia could have a great future—it has enormous potential. However, the country needs a radical change in its image and government structure. My character in the film "Alexandra" says: ask God for wisdom, nothing else is needed. It seems to me that there is a shortage of this among Russian people here. We are inclined towards science and art, but not towards state-building. It’s no coincidence that Peter the Great tried to import European experience—the experience of the civilization within which we exist. But it seems to me that my homeland, my Russia, lacks prophetic, wise, non-forceful solutions.
...— But isn’t it necessary to recognize the terrifying experience Russia had in the 20th century in order to move forward? Why is there almost no discussion at the state level about the centenary of the revolution, except for the remarkable exhibition at the Hermitage?
– The exhibition is indeed remarkable, as is the entire Hermitage—it's the only thing keeping me in St. Petersburg. I think the time hasn't come yet. The event is so straightforward and linear that it can be discussed much later. After all, little has changed since 1917, even though the entire country was turned upside down. I once told Boris Yeltsin that I was certain everything would come back, that the changes of perestroika were superficial, and it's clear why: so many sins, so many crimes were committed, yet the people's ability to comprehend hasn’t progressed. There might even be degradation. To some extent, the practice of the communists, without a doubt, surpasses the practice of today's Russian politicians.
...— Aren't the politicians of the new Russia, the liberals, all of us who cared about nothing but freedom, also to blame here? Back then, we indulged in it and ignored the suffering of people who were laid off, starving, and lost?
– Those changes were swift—and in some sense, it was the right thing to do. It was impossible to endure any longer. The political fury of the forces that were defeated was so intense that the consequences could have been very severe if they had regained power. That's why everyone was in a hurry. Never before had such a large state had to go back to the past. Perestroika required a return to 1917 or 1916, to the ideas that Bolshevism fought against.
We are still moving backward; maybe in three or four years, we'll reach that point, and then what? Then we need to understand where to go—should we build socialism again or the new system that has formed today? First, we experimented in 1917—we went into socialism, where no one else had gone but us. We performed a terrible experiment on ourselves—and we lost. We had to crawl back on our knees—but there was no one left; most had been killed, along with their life experiences and economic practices. All that remains are corpses.
— Maybe we should at least admit that it was in vain that so many people were killed?
– For this, the state must become more civilized. Our country has a huge uniqueness. I think with concern what will happen if those who criticize it today come to power – so what? The same people will be around them, there will not be a single non-corrupt employee of the Ministry of Internal Affairs – try to do something when everything is permeated with this infection. Those who criticize Putin for Syria will get the same huge country with huge borders and a huge army, which must not only be trained, but also periodically put on a hot frying pan, otherwise it will not be able to protect this country. And they will have a large military budget and everything that is happening now. Without serious changes in state building, the structure of the state, relations between regions, the problem cannot be solved. And without these changes, in my opinion, Russia will not exist.
— But how can this be achieved? Look at what any attempt to participate in the political process, the youth taking to the streets, leads to - everything is immediately suppressed.
– The reaction of young people is like this because there is no system of dialogue between the younger generation and society. I have told both the previous and the current governor many times that if you do not start creating a system of political dialogue with schoolchildren and students, they will eventually start running along Nevsky and throwing grenades into restaurants and cafes. You will wait for this. And they will do this not because they are criminals, but because social temperament is the most important part of their nature. It is precisely at this age that unmotivated social activity from the point of view of logic arises, which needs to be transformed into reasonable joint work. This does not exist. Not one of the governors is ready to meet with young people.
When young people in the West go out on the streets, we see looting, robberies, burned cars. Say thank you to our young people who are still behaving quietly – in response to the improper behavior of the riot police and the National Guard, who are beating up young people – I am taken aback by this name, because it says that it must protect the people and the country. The state must behave subtly and wisely, but, unfortunately, it does not behave that way.
...— And these children also have an extremely strong sense of injustice...
– To have more justice, more time is needed. People here have made vast amounts of money in a very short time, but we understand that money doesn't like haste. This is evident even in modest film budgets: if you handle them carefully and without rushing, you’ll have enough for everything, but if you don’t, you won’t accomplish anything and might even end up in debt.
It's clear that wealth is often acquired by someone deceiving or outmaneuvering someone else, or by getting close to power, which naturally demands support for itself in return. We can't expect moral behavior from the state, and it will always be this way until society develops restraining forces that tell politicians that their policies are too costly for the people.
— When you talk about changes, you often emphasize the need to strengthen the humanitarian aspect in governance and all spheres. But how can this be achieved when this space is, on the contrary, shrinking like a piece of shagreen?
– By resisting this shrinking. There are many pressure points here. We have one perspective on preserving the city center, and the authorities have a completely different one. If the authorities and city defenders can find common ground, that would already be significant. We must demand the strictest adherence to the Constitution, insist on the principle of separation of church and state, depoliticization of television, and the development of education.
Here you see someone who received an excellent education in the Soviet Union—I graduated from the history faculty of the university, then from the directing department of the Institute of Cinematography, and I didn’t pay a penny; I even received a scholarship. If I were entering life today, I don't know where I would end up—perhaps I would reach the fourth year of the history faculty, then would have to work, or maybe I wouldn't get an education at all.
Today, the property qualification in education is an absolutely unconstitutional instrument. You shouldn't have to pay for it, especially in Russia, where there are so many problems with spaces, so many national issues. The accessibility of all education here should be absolute—this is not up for debate. Education, culture, and healthcare should receive the largest budgets, otherwise, what is the purpose of the state? The state is needed to create a cultural space, so that people don't become savage. But it is consuming culture.
But this state of affairs is supported by the population. The people are those who think; the rest are just the population. Civil society is not developing either because it lacks support. Are democratic radio stations and "Novaya Gazeta" supported by millions? Not at all. Democracy hasn’t become, and won’t become for a long time, the favorite child of the Russian people, unless there is a shift towards very harsh Stalinist or monarchical principles, or unless the Orthodox Church comes to power, which could even destroy Russia. After all, the powerful Muslim community living in Russia might demand similar dividends.
This worries me more than other political processes. I can be Russian only here, and Orthodox – even at the North Pole. If my country starts to collapse – well, not Moscow and St. Petersburg, that’s not Russia, but my Arkhangelsk, my Murmansk, my Astrakhan, my Yekaterinburg – where will I go as a Russian? If earlier they said "Moscow is behind me", now all that will remain for us is the Arctic Ocean.
...— And what do you think about the new wave of imposing patriotism instead of culture, which seems to be widely accepted?
– People are being dragged into politics, yet they are incapable of understanding even the most basic things. Russian people can't teach their teenagers not to make a mess in the stairwells. Look at some programs on Channel 1 or Channel 2—how people live, the appalling condition of their homes. I try to watch the multi-episode film "Shameless" on NTV; it's a flawless cinematic work. The depiction of life there is sometimes so painful to watch that it hurts to look at the screen. The acting performances are astonishing. We glimpse into the lives of people who have never been to the Hermitage and never will be, who have read three or four books and will read no more. There are countless towns and villages where there is no cultural recreation whatsoever.
You speak of patriotism, and I say: don't urinate in the stairwells! And how many are sitting in prisons! Ninety-five percent are Russian men and women, many of whom have committed bitter, grievous acts. This is what's happening to the people, of which I am a part.
— There is constant talk about patriotism, and at the same time, an interchange on Pulkovo Highway is being built on bones, and a military cemetery is being destroyed.
- This once again speaks of the weakness of the urban conservation movement and that the bureaucratic system has no principles and ideals. We have no talent for state building - we have been building the state for so many centuries, and it still doesn’t work out. This is not inevitable: not every woman who gives birth becomes a mother, not every nation keeps up with the steps of civilization.
— So Russia might not make it in time?
- In a sense, we are already late - in terms of technology. It is difficult for me to judge, but you are now in our modest control room, where there is nothing made in Russia - even the sockets are Chinese. Everything I have on is bought at sales, with labels from Turkey or China. I wanted to buy our watch from the Petrodvorets factory, I bought it - it worked for five months, and they told me: you are so naive, what did you buy!
— Today, some say that Russia is headed for a social explosion or a transition to dictatorship, while others predict stagnation. What do you think is more likely, and which is worse?
– Stagnation is better: it’s a pause, a gathering of strength, the preservation of lives, and the cultivation of people who understand social processes and the economy more deeply. In general, we are capable of big decisions and significant results. To me, the evacuation of industry during the war is a phenomenal story. It was, of course, a brutal method, an extreme effort, but what a scale of creating new industry at the beginning of the war! And yet there is not a single film or study on this! This means there were people who understood and accomplished a task no less complex than military operations on the front.
The Stalinist-Leninist model of the state has long outlived its usefulness. People capable of inventing a new state model need to emerge. I fear we don’t have such people thinking about this, and I am very concerned that soon there will be efforts to rewrite the Constitution, increase repressive measures, and our aggressive ladies in parliament will finish off everyone. But this is not what we need—we need a strong, peaceful, intelligent state, one that is respected, sometimes feared, but that never flaunts its power. Our foreign policy should not be so wasteful and expensive, and our capital shouldn’t be such a burden on our people. This is obvious, but nothing is being done in this direction—it's a real problem...
...— Can the time of stagnation provide a beneficial pause for developing these decisions, or will the authorities use it for further tightening of the rules?
– There will definitely be tightening, but stagnation is the only thing we can hope for. People have already forgotten how long we waited for Gorbachev. No one had any intention of destroying the country, we needed smart changes, so that the political party in power would become smarter, admit the mistakes of the Stalin period, the stupidity of its actions in relation to culture. We need a country that is not a threat to peace, not some unpredictable system. Those who are cursing Gorbachev now – remember how long we waited for him to come! But, apparently, the lack of state talent led to what it led to. You can be a very experienced, but talentless person, that’s the whole point.
— Your tetralogy about power is dedicated to the character of rulers, but you do not show why people fall in love with tyrants. Why?
- It's simple. Hitler was initially a small, reflective subject, and he had no chance of becoming a tyrant if the people had not supported him, because he used the mechanism of democracy 100%. On the other hand, the book "Mein Kampf" was written very early, was published in large print runs - Hitler did not hide anything, and they believed him. This means that there was a cavity, a disease, within the people themselves. And where it exists, what arose with Nazism will certainly arise. The German people supported it.
...— Just as the people in Russia supported Stalin.
– Yes, but in Russia, it’s more complicated. The principles declared by the Communist Party were markedly different from those of Nazi ideology. There was only one vulnerable point—the desire to build communism worldwide, while the Nazis sought to spread their ideology and build a gigantic Nazi state. Hence the activity of intelligence agencies, and one of the points in Germany’s declaration of war on the USSR was complaints about the support of communists who wanted to overthrow the government in Germany.
But the differences are immense. Communism was not a colonial system, whereas Nazism and everything related to its European practices gave rise to colonial systems. There are many more differences. We didn’t have national outcasts.
— But there were class ones – the disenfranchised, the children of priests and nobles.
- Yes, but it was not the scourge of the system.
— And the very concept of "enemy of the people" - after all, anyone could become one? Maybe this is also a cavern?
- Yes, these are terrible signs. If we were a more compact country, maybe everything would be different for us.
— But look. Aleksandr Nikolaevich (Sokurov), here before us are two Koreas - one people, but different power - and what different results. Maybe the meaning of power in general consists in what qualities of human nature it appeals to - the high or the low, because in a person there is both?
- This is a very difficult question. After all, no one ever speaks to the people in devilish categories, they are always called upon to do good. The Korean leader appeals to patriotism. Germany quickly revived the economy after the First World War because the people wanted it. They were told: let's revive metallurgy and agriculture, build military factories, roads - and we will live better. "Yes," said the Germans, "of course!" They were told: you will work in military factories, the best will go into the army, we need planes and tanks, let's build many kindergartens, sewing factories - which of the Germans at that time could object to this practically socialist idea?
And the Duce had the same ideas: everything for the people. And the Italians followed him, and they also went to fight in Russia, died in the thousands, and showed themselves very badly there, by the way. And now it is very easy to convince the population that the whole world is against Russia. But to convince that they need to come to their senses and work, to give entrepreneurs the opportunity to bring maximum benefit to themselves and ultimately to the country - for some reason this does not work. Television does not tell us about new ways of running a farm, for example, and this is so strange! Instead, they talk about Ukraine and America. I think it is a matter of political culture.
— And why do you think intellectuals so often supported troglodyte regimes? For example, French left-wing intellectuals supported Stalin.
- Leftism is the most dangerous political practice of a certain period. And then, the French have not recovered from these diseases, no matter how much they slaughtered each other, they have not completed a single revolution. Politicians must be Cerberuses guarding their laws and the constitution of the state. And where this is not the case, terrible things can happen. Well, genius and villainy are things that go together. And our time is incomparably harder than the 1930s.
...– You mentioned the dangers of leftism in politics, but isn’t there a similar danger of destruction in art?
– It always arises when there are few enlightened people, few talented and genius individuals. As long as music had figures like Shostakovich, Prokofiev... and later Penderecki, these figures acted as guardians, standing at the gates and not allowing any riffraff to pass through. Their very presence is like a high fence that the mediocre cannot jump over.
Look at the quality of Soviet pop music—the mere existence of artists like Bernes and Shulzhenko prevented random girls, whose purpose and talent were unclear, from emerging and doing what they do today. This indicates that there are no grand, talented people in this field.
The same goes for literature—the great novelists are gone, and there are only two or three names left: Ulitskaya, Alexievich, Petrushevskaya—and that’s it. And they are all women. In politics, women are completely nightmarish, but on the other side of the river, there are women writers—can they hold us together? We have always relied on the romantic image of a woman, a girl, a mother. Now, aggressive women are beginning to destroy society. At least, the balance that once came from them no longer exists among European peoples. Somewhere, a significant mistake was made in the development of the Old World—and then no one dared to analyze it further. In the West today, you can’t even discuss this topic—you can’t talk about a woman’s place, her social role, the national characteristics of people, or the relationships between people—so where is the democracy, the freedom of speech? Does that mean there's even more freedom in Russia? And then a journalist tells me, "No, Alexander, they’ll fire me immediately; you can't talk about this anymore!" I ask, "What can you talk about then?" "Anything, except this." So, what is there left to talk about?
— But this is the most important thing!
- It seems so to you and me. Of course, in some of our hopes we rely on European experience, the experience of the Old World. But I am afraid that very soon we in Russia will be left alone with humanitarian problems, and we will think about this more, more deeply and more seriously than they do. This responsibility will fall on the Russian intelligentsia after some time. In general, in the future, Russia will bear a great burden of responsibility for the entire Old World.
— Perhaps the catastrophe also lies in the fact that the feeling to which art has always appealed is now being completely washed out of art?
- Well, European art in general has long been socially oriented. And almost all the films that are made in Russia today, and those that are accepted in the West, are socially motivated. These are not problems of the soul, but problems of the outside world: a person becomes tough, does not love anyone - and no one loves him. But in fact, these are not questions of the soul.
Spirituality and soulfulness are different things, but questions of the soul do not interest cinema today. They interested the Italians – Fellini, Antonioni, although what brilliant masters of form they were! The state of the soul interested Tarkovsky – but which of the modern directors is interested in it? No one! Everyone wants to show how embittered a person is, what he is capable of. A person looks at the screen and thinks: wait, this is about me? So, is this possible? Let me try this dislike, irritation, hatred in my family, in my country. It is impossible to imagine in the times of Fellini, Antonioni, Chukhrai a film about how people do not like each other. And today, both in the West and in Russia, you can see films where the main thing is internal destruction, irritated, angry feelings.
...— On the other hand, there is a destruction of form, and in different types of art: in literature and in painting.
- Yes, it is a reaction to the time that has come: it is, of course, different. People increasingly seek an explanation for their problems in external circumstances. Great art is created on biblical motivations, where there are very clear rules for moving through life. It is precisely said: this road is illusory, and there is no road at all, do not go there. And there were beautiful paintings, symbols: the sacrifice of Christ, the suffering of Mary.
But the world has changed significantly, and there are no priests among us who would think about the evolution of spiritual and mental life. And it must be, you can’t sit on old stones all the time, everything will fall apart. But no one thinks about this. And in the artistic world they are afraid to touch on this: try to discuss some problem of the Muslim world in artistic form - you will simply be killed. Try to talk to the heads of our Orthodox Church about some problems - you will be denounced to the KGB, and you will be destroyed. Religious institutions and worldviews do not require reconstruction, they require renewal at every stage. And the Catholic world at every stage experienced the emergence of new people who declared new church forms and dogmas - and yet the Catholic world, for better or for worse, has survived.
— Do we have any hope at all – in any area?
– You have to live, stay free. I understand that today many people, including me, are in a risky space. I understand that I can be put in jail too. But if you have any strength, then you must definitely do what you want – here, in your homeland. Although I am making my last pictures abroad (I have no opportunities here), I still return to my homeland – to live. To a large, huge, difficult country with amazing people. This is a sinful nation, and it cannot raise men-fathers who will take care of the country’s economy.
Russian women just can’t do it – to raise and educate those whom we call politicians, who, without executions, without imprisonments, sensibly, step by step, can build the Russian home the way it should be: reasonable, self-sufficient, strong, reliable, peaceful, talented.
They say it right: in Russia you have to live long and be needed. There are very few needed people, difficult people in Russia, and I don’t consider myself a needed person in my homeland. It’s hard for me. I look at my future with great anxiety – both civil and professional. I am very worried about my fate, about the fate of my students, in general, about everyone who cares about what is happening in their homeland. Many people care anymore, and that’s good.
I recently had a meeting with the Prime Minister, we talked for quite a long time, I submitted several letters to him – about the state of medical care for women in the north, about the closure of maternity hospitals, hospitals: as a Russian, this offends me. Of course, I did not receive any response. I wrote a letter about the military film studio (I think it was simply abandoned) and a letter about economic activity in the field of cinema and theater – this also touches on the situation with the Kirill Serebrennikov case .
We have long been asking to understand the economics of film production and theatrical business, where there are no recommendations on how to handle state money, and many unwritten documents. I am also concerned about the situation with Gosfilmofond, which needs additional funds for its technical equipment. As long as I live in Russia, I care about how cultural institutions are developing in the country.
I asked to sort out the ban on showing many of my films, offered to give me what the state no longer needs. In auteur cinema there is individual and professional artistic experience that must be preserved. And again no answer. So I still don’t understand who I am, what I am – probably I should sit quietly, keep silent, not be interested in anything.
...— Your wonderful speech at Nika immediately comes to mind .
- Yes, I had some trouble with the organizers - I was given a rather harsh remark about how I dared to speak like that. Of course, I shouldn't have done it, but it was the only opportunity to publicly say what worries me. There is one problem: I have a passport of a citizen of the Russian Federation, and it not only obliges me to comply with certain rules, but also calls on me to think about the country of which I am a citizen.
— It was quitely difficult to look at the faces in the hall: many had this expression – well, go on, go on, it’s clear who’s talking…
- Yes, the speech was inappropriate, and Konchalovsky got angry. People come there to have fun, and reflection on events in the country irritates them greatly. They are well-off, live well and say that they are far from politics, well, and I can be unrestrained - that's true. First of all, I spoke about our dignity, which consists in not beating up girls, not touching them. At a public event, no Rosgvardia employee has the right to even touch a girl, say a rude word, she is inviolable. Whoever makes fun of this, we still have great literature, great music, a great civilization behind us, which has clearly formulated moral principles.
— And within the framework of which civilization are they formulated – only Russian or still European?
– I feel the Russian civilization better, the European one worse, especially in recent years, looking at multiculturalism, at what the Americans did in Iraq. Many things in the world today are not going as we would like – there is already a large burden of accumulated and unrealized mistakes in the European consciousness. I remember what difficult conversations I had with my friends from Germany during the bombing of Yugoslavia: they all supported it, but I did not understand it. But then it became clear that this is general political short-sightedness. And this suggests that it is time for us to start living with our own heads, make our own decisions, seriously think about how we should continue to live and develop.
I do not see a renaissance in either the intellectual or political European environment. Just like in Russia, we see a crisis of federalism, a crisis of statehood, and no one is thinking seriously about it. It seems to me that in Europe, too, no one is thinking about political strategy, one president replaces another, their political life is short, no one has time to concentrate, even the UN does not discuss big, serious issues. This is the other side of the degradation of the political environment.
— I’ll tell you something scary: maybe this means that humanity needs new shocks?
- It is quite possible, but it is a terrible assumption. I am simply formulating what humanity needs: vote for those for whom humanitarian principles are higher than political ones.
— Every time we come up against the word “humanitarian”, but what can help us as a species to preserve our humanity?
– I don’t know what will help the Germans or the French, but the Russians will be helped by the revival of the village – the cultural layer that doesn’t drink, doesn’t crawl on all fours along its dirty roads from the store to its horrible home. That’s the first thing, and the second is a decisive change in political principles: the state is created so that culture can exist.
— But how will this revival of the village be accomplished? You saw how journalist Andrei Loshak filmed the village, walking with a camera along Radishchev's route from St. Petersburg to Moscow?
- Yes, Loshak is a brilliant director and a brilliant citizen. There are people to whom I am ready to bend my knees. He taught me a lot, I am in his debt as a citizen of Russia. We need to decisively change the activities of state television, remove this talentless swill, declare a day of silence with empty screens - only news and music, preferably classical. Step-by-step actions, political will and clarity of mind are needed to change the country.
Yavlinsky clearly formulated what is needed: respect for the individual. Contempt for culture, contemptuous attitude towards the individual, disrespect for him – this is our end-to-end motivation, including as part of the national character. There are programs on television now that show so much human grief, so many troubles – and very often it turns out that it is not the authorities who are to blame, but the people themselves who are bad and behave badly.
A serious restructuring of the state organism is needed, a revision of the federal structure, and if there is no such revision, I am sure we will ruin, destroy Russia. After all, even the Bolsheviks, having come to power, made two brilliant moves - the elimination of illiteracy and the separation of church and state. The elimination of illiteracy was a broad target program, the opening of schools, publishing houses, millions of dollars in expenses and enormous state energy. Unfortunately, it went hand in hand with the disaster of Stalin's absolutism that later overtook the country.
— And now the exact opposite process has been launched – the closure of universities, the tightening of rules in schools...
- I don't understand the goals of this process. Maybe this is the wrong personnel policy, because the president is not able to correctly comprehend and evaluate everything, I don't understand at all how he lives in this schedule.
— Maybe the graph is like this because the vertical is too pointed?
– Maybe this is the realization of his idea of necessity for the country – you must agree that he has the right to think so, even if the rating is exaggerated, but not that much.
— Yes, but many will object that if you clear the entire field like this, not letting anyone on the first channels, then it is clear that support will remain with one.
- I agree, but at the same time, if there were serious big leaders, we would know about them. Navalny exists - he is a fighter. But very few men can decide on a political fight. Only a woman can decide on such a confrontation. Men are timid, and besides, it is easier to kill a man.
— We have enough murdered women – for example, Galina Starovoitova.
- Yes, she was a major politician, an outstanding person, her death is a disaster. And the death of Politkovskaya,and Estemirova,and Nemtsov... They will still have to answer for these terrible crimes - if not to Jesus, then to Allah. There will still be responsibility from above.
...— For the performers or for the country?
– For those who organized the murders. And Russia has nothing to punish for – it has never admitted its mistakes. But we need to inform the people that they are responsible. All the politicians, all the parties should come to Norilsk, to Komi, to Kolyma, kneel before these cemeteries of the murdered, the prisoners – and let this be shown to the whole people. Will we live to see this? In general, it would be ideal if the State Duma and the Federation Council got on ordinary planes and flew to Kolyma. Let them clear the snow for them, lay out blankets, let them kneel and stand silently before some cemetery of prisoners. And the whole people should see this – then something will start to change.
...
