Ilya Azar, a well-known Russian journalist who has worked on projects such as Lenta.ru and Meduza, published a lengthy interview on his blog on the Wilson Center website with one of the leaders of the Russian anti-Putin opposition, member of the Executive Council of the Congress of People's Deputies, Ilya Ponomarev. In the article titled "Adventurer, Entrepreneur, Trickster," the author, with his characteristic "teasing" and apparently his own point of view on both the personality of the interviewee and the goals and methods of his struggle, still reveals many aspects of the activities of both Ilya Ponomarev himself and the entire Congress of People's Deputies project.

However, it is not so much the journalist who reveals them, but directly Ilya Ponomarev himself with his answers to often tricky and unpleasant questions from the interviewer.

Below is the full text of the article translated into English, directly from the original text, with no unnecessary explanations needed.

Most leaders of the Russian opposition who have emigrated travel around Europe from conference to conference, discussing how to rebuild Russia after the Ukrainian army drives out Vladimir Putin. Former State Duma deputy Ilya Ponomarev also attends forums, but he has focused on armed resistance against the regime: since the beginning of the war, he has been involved (or pretends to be involved) in organizing guerrilla warfare in Russia and supporting Russian battalions fighting against the Russian army as part of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. Ponomarev hopes to reach Moscow with them at a "favorable moment" and establish the power of a transitional parliament, which is currently sitting in Poland, called the Congress of People's Deputies. Under Ponomarev's leadership, they have been developing and passing laws for the new Russia for about a year.

 In a detailed conversation with journalist Ilya Azar, Ponomarev compares himself to Charles de Gaulle and assures that his revolution, unlike the February Revolution, will definitely be successful, especially if the TV channel "Dozhd" starts airing advertisements for "Join the Army of Future Russia" and if the "Kremlin agents" in the opposition movement stop spreading disbelief in its success.

 The most high-profile raid by the Russian Volunteer Corps in the Belgorod region was back in June. Why there has been no significant activity since then is unclear?

We must understand that war is not for PR, and people should not die for it. We carry out military tasks that lead to certain military and political results. First, there was reconnaissance by combat of the RDK in March in the Bryansk region, then there was a long period of work to ensure that representatives of all units reached agreements with each other, and as a result, the Legion "Freedom of Russia" (another unit formed from Russian citizens in the Armed Forces of Ukraine) and the RDK carried out two actions in June of this year in the Belgorod region, or you could say one big action, demonstrating that they are capable of liberating significant areas of Russian territory and "taking cities".

This was important, firstly, to inspire supporters: after this, there was a sharp increase in the influx of personnel into the same Legion. Secondly, a military task was being solved there to divert forces from the Zaporizhzhia direction. This task was solved, and we don't need to just wander around Russian territory. In the past few months, there have been, I think, three or four raids by the RDK into Russian territory, and the Legion has made four raids. But they were much more targeted, which is related to two things. Firstly, the Russian army has made a lot of efforts to mine and fortify the border, so the risks have greatly increased.

Secondly, the main factor that is currently holding us back is the artillery capabilities that the Ukrainian army in general, and the Legion "Freedom of Russia" in particular, can use. Although the Legion has two artillery battalions, all the artillery is Western equipment, and we cannot bring it with us to Russian territory as it is prohibited by agreements between Western donors and the Ukrainian side. Because of this, the maximum depth of penetration provided by fire cover is no more than 30-35 kilometers. It doesn't go any further. At the same time, consistently holding territory without taking artillery with us means suffering heavy losses. We saw this during the raid in Shebekino in the Belgorod region. Our units reached there, and the Russian army began doing the same thing it did in Bahmut - bombarding the city with indiscriminate artillery fire. Why waste our own forces in this situation and antagonize peaceful citizens who are being hit by these shells? We showed what we can do and left.

But our plan has not changed: sooner or later we will liberate a piece of territory and raise the white-blue-white flag over it. However, in order to do this, we need to reach an agreement with the West on artillery, and we are actively negotiating on this topic.

I was told that there is a huge queue of people willing to serve in the Legion, but Ukraine does not want to let everyone in. It does not seem that Kyiv is interested in strengthening these battalions.

For Ukraine, all these units are the main way to influence the situation inside Russia. Since Western weapons cannot be used against Russian targets, the only ones who can enter Russian territory and do something there are armed Russians. Only the West cannot prohibit them from carrying out the corresponding tasks.

From the perspective of volunteers' access to the territory of Ukraine, there is indeed a problem here. I cannot comment on the statistics of the Right Sector and the Siberian Battalion, but in the Legion, we receive approximately a thousand applications per month, of which only 30 to 50 people pass the filter. That's the scale of this funnel. This is not because there is no military task or Ukraine's desire to do something about it.

The question is that the verification of individuals is difficult, the checks are lengthy, and while they are ongoing, people will essentially be idle, and they need to be fed, supported, and trained. Therefore, it is easier to raise the bar: the requirements for a person and the level of their training in the Legion are ultimately much higher than the average in the Armed Forces of Ukraine. They train high-quality special forces there. Now Blackwater, the largest international private military company, has joined this.

There is also a significant difference between the Legion and the Right Sector and the Siberian Battalion: the Legion does not want to take in "political" individuals at all. There is a well-known story of Ildar Dadin, who applied to the Legion but was not accepted. He did not work out with the Right Sector, as far as I heard, due to ideological reasons and eventually joined the Siberian Battalion. Not that there were any complaints about Dadin. On the contrary, we all know that he is great, he successfully passed the polygraph. But the Legion's command wants to see people strictly of a military nature - unquestioningly following orders and focused on solving military tasks, not on political struggle.

Then how can one seriously claim that the Legion's goal is to capture territories in Russia with subsequent march on Moscow, when there are only a couple thousand people and a crater?

The number of people will increase as soon as the conditions are met. At the moment, the Legion resolves this issue in such a way that a large number of those willing to fight remain inside Russia and receive tasks from the Legion's military command to carry out actions on the ground. For example, the number of arson attacks on relay cabinets has sharply increased recently, although it is easy to notice that there are more serious actions as well. Currently, there are over five thousand people in the overall cloud of individuals working with the Legion inside Russia, although six months ago there were less than a thousand.

This is a very significant growth, but it is a way to bypass the lack of necessity and desire to physically bring people to the territory of Ukraine, which we consider one of the most acute issues for us in principle. It should be noted that I also see limitations here, related to the approach of the Russian opposition community as a whole. If we had some more or less unified position that there is an army of future free Russia and it needs to be supported in every possible way - roughly speaking, if the TV channel "Dozhd" was running an advertisement "Join the army of future Russia!" - then, I am sure, we would overcome this bottleneck problem.

You just said that there are already many people willing. Why then advertise on "Dozhd"?

When you don't go against the current, when everyone around you doesn't sow discord and doubt, it is much easier to establish selection and verification procedures. I'll tell you straight, it looks like the Kremlin's agents in the opposition movement are consciously and successfully spreading apathy, fear, mutual suspicion, and disbelief in success.

Support for opposition Russians is also needed for financing entry into the army. When a new volunteer is on Ukrainian territory, he is provided with shoes, clothing, and food, he is trained - he is officially supported by the Armed Forces of Ukraine. But until he gets there - and on average it takes about six months from the moment of contact to entry - the person needs to be taken out of Russia, often something needs to be resolved with his close relatives because they are very worried about them, and then he needs somewhere to live, at least in a cheap hostel, he needs to be provided with training. All this requires money.

We will solve this question sooner or later. The one who walks will overcome the road. Ukraine is watching how opposition-minded Russian citizens react and how quickly they mature to support armed struggle. Everything is fine, the process is moving in the right direction. The number of people will not be the bottleneck in the end, I assure you.

In addition to weapons, which cannot be used in Russia, another serious limitation is the international recognition of this whole story, which, in turn, is interconnected with the split of the Russian elite. The favorable moment for the attack is related to the instability in the Russian leadership, which will occur when the elite loses hope of survival in the existing atmosphere and sees a political alternative to switch to. But this is connected to the position of the West.

Do you hope that the West will support the Congress of People's Deputies and Ponomarev, rather than Khodorkovsky and Gudkov? Why?

For two reasons: firstly, the West will never dare to independently participate in a change of power in Russia. It delegates this to Ukraine, which, in turn, will only negotiate with Russians involved in the power resistance. Ukraine, in a political sense, works specifically with the Congress.

Secondly, Khodorkovsky does not create an independent project for a change of power. He hopes that the West will insist on incorporating opposition representatives into the new Russian government after Putin, and will make this a condition for lifting sanctions. I think this is a utopia.

But Khodorkovsky is currently doing important work - as the "elder" of the opposition, he is consolidating disparate political groups of "peaceful," "respectable" public figures into a broad People's Front. To change power, there will need to be an alliance between this front and the power wing, but this will all happen at the final stage - for now, we are friends and moving in parallel.

You said back in 2019, "This smells bad, fighting against our own is wrong. Against the Kremlin within Russia - yes, but I cannot fight against the guys who were deceived and sent to the slaughter." It is clear that this was said before the war, but do you think it is normal now?

Until 2022, Russian society psychologically lived in a state of peace. Yes, from the perspective of Russians, something was happening in the Donbass region, some specialists were doing something there. But now society understands that it is in a state of war. People are now divided into those who are willing to support or reconcile with Putinism, which has unleashed a large-scale war, and those who are not ready. Until February2022, it was not possible to demand this certainty from people, but if someone does not make a decision even in a situation of war, then they will have to be treated differently.

And do you think that the citizens of Russia will welcome the Legion or RDK with flowers?

An experiment in the Belgorod region showed that they will. I am speaking figuratively about flowers because no one in Shebekino had the opportunity to run to the market and buy flowers for the incoming forces. But our colleagues definitely felt the support.

And if there is a march on Moscow, will people not resist? And even if there are losses among the civilian population, will they understand this?

Firstly, there will be no losses among the civilian population during such a march in principle. I have tried to explain on my fingers how this will happen before, but everyone argued with me. But recently, Mr. Prigozhin vividly demonstrated to us how it could look. Legion will march on Moscow in a similar way.

I think that the Wagner PMC in Rostov was welcomed not only or not so much as a force that stood against the Kremlin, but as people who "fight against the Ukrainians" and who are being mistreated by the Ministry of Defense.

I have many friends in the Rostov region with whom I am in constant contact. There are also many public pages that have published eyewitness testimonies. It is clear from them that there is a pro-patriotic part of the Russian population that supported "Wagner" as a more radical wing of power, but they are a clear minority.

The overwhelming majority was happy that someone would finally go to Moscow and give everyone a kick. The leitmotif was this: boys appeared who don't just talk, but take action. No one was interested in what views they have and what they will build in Moscow after this. The two main discourses were anti-Moscow and power-oriented.

But still, the Wagnerites were perceived as their own because they came from their side of the front. And the Legion and the RDK will still be considered strangers, coming from the enemy's side.

But how are they strangers? They came from the same place as the Wagnerites. Who understands the situation on the ground? Russians don't have and won't have such an approach. They don't speak a different language! Of course, if the march on Moscow turns into a long war for several months, people will be brainwashed by propaganda on television.

But these will be people with flags that are not Russian, at least with white-blue-white flags (some opposition considers it the new flag of the future democratic RF), and maybe even with Ukrainian flags, so they cannot be perceived as their own.

People will see the faces of Russian guys on the tanks' armor. If these are NATO tanks, of course, they will perceive them negatively. But if it's our own equipment and our own guys, everything will be fine. Tanks and armored personnel carriers are of Soviet production in the Legion and RDK.

You recently said on "Voice of America" that you don't want foreign armies to come to Russia to fight, that "intervention is bad." Now you said that Ukrainian volunteers can join the campaign to Moscow. Do these statements contradict each other?

I said that I don't want to see German or American soldiers on Russian soil. That's the plain truth. I still don't want that. But they themselves don't want it either, which is characteristic (laughs). And with Ukrainians, I believe there is no problem. It was not Ukraine that started this war, but the Russian Federation and Mr. Putin.

I don't argue with this, but in the eyes of Russian citizens, it will be perceived as intervention.

Ilya, of course, I understand that you are playing devil's advocate in this interview, but we are talking about practice, not theory. Throughout the history of this conflict, we haven't seen Ukrainians being perceived as enemies by Russian citizens. This only exists on Russian television.

When people see fighters in person, they rely primarily on the language they speak. They are just like them. Everyone looks at external signs and doesn't ask for a person's passport. Therefore, the narrative actively promoted by Russian opposition figures, that they don't want to support Ukraine because it is a foreign army and a foreign country, is not shared by ordinary Russian citizens. It is simply untrue and an excuse for their own inaction.

And where do you know what Russians think?

The experiment was conducted in the Belgorod region. We saw how people react.

Why did the RDK make a statement that you are trying to interfere with their achievements?

I have no connection with them now. Why they think I am going to interfere with their achievements, I don't know, you should ask them. But I never spoke on their behalf, although I didn't hide that we used to communicate actively. Maybe they have their own disputes. I think they were more inspired by people from Poland who worked with them politically and whom [RDK commander Denis] Kapustin ultimately expelled.

There hasn't been a serious change in the front line for a long time. Chief Commander of the Armed Forces of Ukraine Valeriy Zaluzhny stated that the situation is at a stalemate. I'm not a military expert, but it seems that such a state can last for a long time. In this sense, are the chances of the Legion dissipating?

I do not fully agree with the situation being at a deadlock, but I am not an impartial observer here and cannot provide arguments that form my point of view because it is classified information. I will simply say that I believe in the Ukrainian military and think they know what they are doing. They have a specific plan on how this situation will change.

As for the Legion, even if the situation stabilizes for a long time, it is only for the better for us because it gives us the opportunity to grow to the desired size. That's one. Secondly, if victory cannot be achieved on the battlefield in Ukraine, then the demand for actions on Russian territory will only increase.

And it is growing. We are seeing this now in the West. Half a year ago, this topic was completely taboo. But three major events - the drone attack on the Moscow Kremlin before May9th, the campaign in Belgorod, and the rebellion of Prihodzina - have created a demand for dialogue in the Western elite with Russian armed units both on the front lines and in the rear. This dialogue is, of course, taking place in a non-public key, but it can easily be inferred from articles and interviews in leading world media.

Recently, everyone was discussing the words of Ukrainian deputy David Arakhamia about Putin's proposal to withdraw troops in exchange for Ukraine's neutrality, but Ukraine refused. Do you disagree with the opinion that neutrality without Crimea, but with tens or even hundreds of thousands of lives saved, would be the best solution?

By the way, this topic is mainly fueled by Russians, both Kremlin and emigrants. Both sides are actually gloating: the former for the humiliation of the first months of the war and the fear of a counterattack, the latter for their Ukraine not recognizing them as "good Russians". But the position of Ukrainian society remains unchanged - only victory, as David Arakhamia recently mentioned in his interview.

Ukrainians will not allow their leaders to engage in any "peaceful negotiations" that would not appear as a defeat for Russia. The current mood is to fight to victory even with bare hands. I think the only possible option is this: first, Ukraine is accepted into NATO and the EU, and then we can talk about the Korean-Cypriot scenario. But not the other way around - Ukrainians will no longer believe promises of acceptance in the future.

So even if there is no progress from the Ukrainian army, Legion will go to Moscow on its own?

At the moment when we are ready and see that it is a favorable time for an attack from the perspective of what is happening in Russia - yes.

Do you think the Russian army and security forces are so helpless that they cannot even stop tens of thousands of legionnaires?

Yes, I am convinced of that.

So what are you waiting for? 

Do you want us to entertain you and other journalists or achieve results? Everything will happen at the right moment.

You just said that there would be no victims among the civilian population. I disagree with that and want to remind you of your words regarding the bombing of the Crimean Bridge. You said about tourists going to Crimea that you would "actively attack such gatherings." Is that normal at all?

I did indeed say that and I do not change my position. If people go to an occupied territory, they should be aware that a missile could hit them. How else can we demonstrate that the threat is real?

But you didn't say that, you said that you would specifically attack them.

Any people who assist the occupation in wartime, I believe, should be attacked. Once again: if people go to an occupied territory during a war, they automatically become enemy soldiers. Regardless of whether they wear epaulettes or not.

But you understand that these people take their children with them...

Exactly! They commit a crime against their own children. I would imprison such parents on Russian territory so that they wouldn't do it. But unfortunately, the current illegal Russian government is doing everything possible to put entire families at risk. They are doing exactly the same thing as Hamas terrorists in Gaza. They deliberately encourage innocent people to go to the war zone, so that they can later shed crocodile tears and say, "What bastards, shooting at them."

But those people who live in Russia are just peaceful citizens, and according to all international agreements and rules of war, no one should attack them under any circumstances. But at the same time, if there is a war, of course, it happens that a shell will fly somewhere it shouldn't. The responsibility for this lies with those people who started the war, not those who defend their homeland.

It must be said that in the event of an attack on Moscow, the main risk will be in Moscow, not on the way there.

Are Muscovites not worth anything?

Muscovites are the main beneficiaries of this regime, and it is not by chance that the whole country hates this inner circle. Although any generalizations, of course, are wrong in their essence.

For example, I am not ready to fight on Russia's side, but if any country attacked Russia, I would go to defend it if necessary.

If any country attacked Russia, I would also defend it, but it is attacking. That's why I took a machine gun and went to defend Ukraine when it was attacked. Unfortunately, it turned out that Russia was the aggressor.

But when people cross the border and start heading towards Moscow, it is perceived by people as aggression in any case...

No, here you are showing simply astonishing moral relativism for such an intelligent person, because you say that the Soviet Union, Great Britain, and the United States attacked Nazi Germany.

No, I don't say that.

There is a complete analogy here because Nazi Germany attacked the Soviet Union and Great Britain, and then they, together with the United States, occupied German territory, establishing foreign rule that lasted for several years. They built a new government so that Germany would not attack anyone else.

Therefore, I see no moral contradictions in liberating the Russian Federation, which attacked Ukraine and previously attacked Georgia, Chechnya, and committed many other things, from the regime that started these wars. For this, our troops must enter Russian territory, liberate Moscow, and hang the criminals after a public trial.

Who will decide who to judge? And why did you determine the verdict of the court in advance?

No, I didn't determine it. Rather, I assume it based on the analogy with Nuremberg. And the crowd at the moment of overthrowing the power will not hesitate: it will seek revenge for its own years of slavery, and I think in the most barbaric way. I'm not sure if the Legion will be able to stop it. Although personally, I am against the death penalty altogether and sincerely believe that life imprisonment and lifelong shame are a more severe punishment.

Do you think the Anti-Corruption Foundation will ever agree that armed resistance is the only correct path?

Why should I care about the opinion of the Anti-Corruption Foundation?

It is still the main opposition force in Russia.

I, and no one in Ukraine, perceive it that way. They don't perceive us that way either.

I thought you would answer like that. Maybe because they are worried about the fate of Navalny and other hostages, while you calmly accept constant searches of people accused of having connections with you?

It is well known that I do not like Navalny as a politician, but it will be up to me to release Navalny. Just like I have done several times in my life as a deputy during the "swamp protests".

Volkov will be watching from Vilnius, and our people will directly extract Navalny from the colony where he is currently located.

By the way, the only way to free political prisoners now is through exchange programs with Ukraine. And we are in a race against time because for people like Volodya Kara-Murza or Alexey Gorinov, their health is ticking away. The Congress of People's Deputies has prepared and coordinated with Ukraine an exchange list that is currently being discussed with the Russian side, which includes these comrades of ours, among others. At the moment, this is the most realistic way to save their lives.

But almost two years have passed, and there have been no political exchanges.

The idea of such exchanges was accepted by the Ukrainian side in August2023. After checking the existing lists of political prisoners, we realized that "Memorial" and other liberal human rights defenders ignored the existence of partisans and those who actually resisted the authorities, and this affected Ukraine's readiness to even consider it.

Therefore, on August31, the working group of the Congress, led by Legion Commander Caesar, formed a list of 300 people who were supporters of both nonviolent resistance and armed actions, and who suffered because of their anti-war position. It was handed over to the Ukrainian side, and negotiations are currently underway. They have a chance of success.

Unfortunately, the Russian side is currently delaying all exchanges, including with prisoners of war on the front line, even with severely wounded and disabled individuals.

And who to propose in exchange for people like Navalny or Kara-Murza?

Let's not get into the technique of negotiations, but if they are happening - and they are happening - then there is a subject for discussion. In Ukraine, the number of Russian collaborators in prisons far exceeds the number of political prisoners in Russia. Some, being agents of the FSB, are of great interest to their employers.

Does Navalny appear on these lists?

Personally, I would include Navalny on the list - although he is not well-liked in Ukraine - and this would have to be explained to society and the Ukrainian authorities. But his team initially showed interest and then did not confirm their willingness to participate in such a program. Yashin also refused publicly. However, there are other notable political prisoners under military articles.

You haven't said anything about the people who are connected to you and are going to be tried. Does that not concern you?

I am concerned about the fate of every political prisoner who exists, but I am not going to stop my activities just because someone is taking someone hostage in Russia. Especially since out of the approximately 50 people who came to me saying "You are Ponomarev's friends," there were, in my opinion, only 5 or6 people who I am at least acquainted with or have interacted with in some way. For example, I know Misha Lobanov from social networks, but we are not acquainted and have not met. So why should I bear responsibility for accusations against him and, moreover, change my course of action to please the authorities?

Well, in a human way.

How in a human way? So, I was driving a car like a normal person, and then in another country, someone was falsely accused of a traffic violation committed by me. So, should I just stop driving a car, please tell me? I sympathize, of course, with the person who was innocently arrested. If there is anything I can do to help them, I would gladly do it.

And how do you help them?

With rare exceptions, ultimately, I don't help them at all. Usually, people need lawyers, but lately, all lawyers refuse to interact with my Center, even anonymously: the risk is too great. So, we are left with exchange lists and international publicity. For a number of people, we were able to evacuate them from Russia, sometimes illegally.

Over a year ago, in an interview, you told me that the National Republican Army exists and that after Dugin's murder, "your task is to make something happen once a month." Since then, there has been the murder of Tatarsky, an assassination attempt on Prilepin, and that's it. It seems that the NRA doesn't really exist.

The NRA does indeed exist. But that doesn't mean it has to act specifically for journalists to write about it. It is an organization that deals with military tasks behind enemy lines. When there is an opportunity to solve a political task and make a loud statement, it does so. But when there is no such opportunity or when it puts people at risk, it doesn't talk about it. The results of the partisan movement's growth in Russia are evident.

Not long ago, you were not allowed to attend the Congress of Free Russia in Vilnius, then the meeting with Khodorkovsky in Berlin, because they did not want to sit with a "terrorist." Now, Harry Kasparov's Free Russia Forum is raising money for Russian volunteer battalions as part of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. What has changed?

It seems to me that the mainstream has shifted. A year and a half ago, supporters of violent methods of struggle were almost non-existent: less than one percent. Now [Marat] Gelman, after visiting the Legion's headquarters, talks about this on "The Live Nail," and among the most pacifist audience that can only be, a vote is held, and55% say they support armed struggle (I could not find this poll, Ponomarev promised, but never sent the link. - Ed. note).

Is it your merit?

I am involved in this, helping and, accordingly, rejoicing in any success that exists. But that doesn't mean Ponomarev went and organized it, that's not true. Your child is growing up, taking their first steps. It's their merit, not yours! But you do everything possible to feed, support, and encourage them.

Similarly, you helped launch "Morning Dagestan," but then distanced yourself from it.

Yes, I am involved in a very large number of projects. I am a professional startup entrepreneur - I help something start, then move on to something else. Scientifically speaking, my work can be called: promoting the development of the resistance ecosystem. I strive to ensure that the political palette plays with different colors and never seek control.

There is a flip side to this: many projects that I have been directly involved in creating later distance themselves - their leaders want to have a personal clearing for themselves that they don't have to share with anyone. As we understand, conscience is not about politics.

And why did you speak out against the anti-Semitic pogrom in Dagestan? Isn't any destabilization of the situation in Russia beneficial to your cause?

Exactly for the same reason why I am against, for example, the existence of an opposition troll factory. Because a change of power is also a project of values. If you do it with dishonest and immoral methods, you will compromise the goal.

Of course, everyone has their own limits of what they consider moral. For example, my namesake Lev Ponomarev believes that any violence is immoral, and therefore it will lead to negative results in political struggle. I don't think so, but he has the right to his own point of view. I consider organizing an anti-Semitic pogrom in the name of achieving my political goal as an immoral technique. Therefore, I will definitely not do it.

And in principle, do you support the resumption of war in the Caucasus by Islamists?

I do not support any war. I only support the cessation of war. As the Congress of People's Deputies, we have considered the position of the congress on the Caucasus. One of the main motives is that any force that wants to separate or gain additional autonomy must act according to the rules. These rules need to be agreed upon in advance to avoid disputes, bloodshed, and violence when the situation begins to change in a revolutionary way.

I am in favor of each nation in Russia determining how they want to live in the future. And for the joint (or separate) existence of all regions - this applies not only to national republics but also to Siberia or even Ingria - to be the result of a free and conscious choice. I support the new Constitution of Russia being written through crowdsourcing and adopted in a general referendum, where everyone could express their opinion and their voice would be heard. And for the bonfire of civil war not to be ignited.

Kurils, as I understood, you have already given them to the Japanese.

You are confusing me with Lev Ponomarev.

No, you signed some document...

I was talking to the Japanese about something else. I was saying that we need to start peaceful negotiations because our countries are still in a state of war, and that's bad. We signed an agreement between the Congress of People's Deputies and everyone except one faction of the Japanese parliament to develop a peace treaty. I don't think this peace agreement will end with just a mechanical transfer of the Japanese islands. But some compromise scenario will definitely be reached and presented to the Russian parliament, which will decide whether to accept this scenario or not.

Do you consider the Congress of People's Deputies as the future parliament?

The Congress of People's Deputies will be a transitional parliament because there is a question of a temporary gap between when power changes and when free parliamentary elections take place. In order for the elections to take place, a whole series of legal and organizational procedures must be followed. Parties need to emerge, media, courts, and electoral commissions need to appear to conduct these elections.

In our concept of the transitional period, the first step is local elections, where, on the one hand, there are no risks of distorting the vote, and on the other hand, citizens will feel that normal elections are possible and that through these elections they begin to truly become empowered.

The second step is the adoption of a new Constitution through a national referendum. And this, along with the signing of a new federal treaty as its integral part, is essentially the formation of a new country. After the Constitution is adopted according to the rules written in it, the formation of a new governance system will take place. We very much hope that we can go through this entire transitional period not over four years, as it was in Germany, but two.

I don't want to offend anyone, but currently the composition of the CIS looks extremely marginal, and I don't see any grounds to believe that it will be able to gain any trust from ordinary Russians.

You shouldn't speak for all Russians, you are currently talking about the opposition crowd. Ordinary Russians have not yet expressed their opinions on this matter. Moreover, if they did express themselves in any way, it was more likely in favor of this congress, because its participants are the only ones who went through the election process and received a mandate of trust. At the moment, we have about a hundred deputies, for whom a total of over7.5 million people voted. And before that, the Coordination Council of the opposition had the largest reserve of legitimacy in the Russian opposition, with120,000 votes in the elections.

This is manipulation of numbers, you understand it yourself!

This is not manipulation of numbers. We are in a situation where there is no legitimacy for any power in the country. And any legitimacy will be built either by force with bayonets or by legitimacy from the West, which is currently proposed by many Russian opposition figures, for example, Khodorkovsky.

The most famous members of the Executive Council of the CIS have disappeared - Mark Feygin, Gennady Gudkov, and Elena Lukyanova. Is the authority of the organization decreasing over time?

The Executive Council is a technical body. We did not, do not, and will not want to have any bosses. All our deputies are equal. We have excellent relations with Feygin, he is focused on his media project. Lukyanova still heads the Expert Council of the Congress and recently presented our Constitution project in Washington.

Feygin and Gudkov have stated that they no longer have time for the CIS, so they will not participate anymore.

Yes, they don't have enough time.

But we understand that in reality this is not the true reason.

Firstly, you are speaking for them and suggesting that I also say something for them. From my point of view, both are my friends. I have no political or other disagreements with them. There were some disputes during the creation of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), but not with them, and there is one deputy who violated the fundamental declaration of the Congress, so his participation had to be blocked. Such people exist, but Feigin and Gudkov are not among them.

So you don't believe that all well-known opposition figures try to avoid the CIS and, moreover, those who initially participated in it have started to distance themselves from it?

I don't know anyone who has distanced themselves from our congress because they were disappointed in the idea, so I definitely disagree with that statement. There are, of course, certain problems associated with people who have never participated in the Congress and are our opponents, trying to exert media pressure on those who participate in the congress. Sometimes this turns into pressure that is not quite dignified. We know about the complaints that various foreign ministries write, stating that countries have harbored terrorists on their territory.

The story of the transitional parliament reminds me of the Constituent Assembly, which never convened, and power in the end was taken by people, let's say, with balls and weapons. But where is the guarantee that while gentlemen Vilents and Tsarkov will be making changes, radicals or authoritative people in power won't just arrest you?

Ilya, my dear, people with balls and weapons - that's us (laughs). Some of our opposition colleagues actually dream of a Constituent Assembly. They believe that somehow, mystically, in Russia there will be a change of power, after which, somehow, mystically, new elections will take place and the Constituent Assembly will convene by itself and build a democratic structure, based on which everything else will be created. Guys, it definitely won't happen.

So you will be imposing democracy with guns in hand? That's how a civil war starts.

A civil war begins when there are fundamental contradictions between large social groups that possess their own power resources. Just do a simple exercise: open the list of governors and read about each one, where they come from and who they are connected to. According to our informed calculations, only 14 people will resist the new government. And even they might not resist. Everyone else will swear allegiance to any new government that comes from the Kremlin. Any.

The history of Russia clearly shows that after Putin is gone, the country can go one of two ways. Either it will be a transformation of the current elite, and they will not care about the West, which will suggest appointing someone like Khodorkovsky as prime minister. They will have something to bargain with: Ukrainian territories, nuclear weapons - anything, but not allowing emigration to take control. Or it will be people who come as a result of a revolutionary process, and then there is also no reason why they should share this power with anyone after they have conquered it with weapons in hand.

So why would you share it then?

And I won't share it either until I establish the rules of the system after the transitional period. But the key to our ability to take power is having preliminary and written commitments on how we will step away from it after two years, which will end with free elections. However, right now, until the executive power emerges, we are fully open because I believe that the existence of a broad coalition, from Navalny and Katz to the Legion and the partisans, will greatly accelerate international recognition, spur the division of Russian elites, and create serious prerequisites for change in Russia.

Everyone needs to understand that there is no third way. If we don't come to power together through a mass uprising supported by the Legion's bayonets, then the next leader will be either Mishustin or Medvedev. And the West will recognize them. And then there will be no positive changes in Russia, and you will continue to live in exile. And those who don't join us will simply be left on the sidelines of history. That's it.

In post-Putin Russia, who are you, so to speak: Kerensky, Lenin, or Vlasov?

(Laughs.) You say something now, and then you won't be able to wash it off! I want to make a "February" revolution that will be successful. From the perspective of systematization, technology, and organization, of course, Lenin's figure is closer to me. Currently, Navalny represents Kerensky in terms of appearance, but in terms of actions, Navalny is exactly like Lenin, a typical Bolshevik. There is no doubt that when we free him, he will climb onto an armored vehicle and try to seize power and transform February into October - that is, into a regime of sole power of his political group.

I just want to avoid the mistakes made by the February Revolution and the1991 revolution, and strive for the country to follow a democratic path. But the temptation for our respected opposition colleagues to fall for a single leader, who, in their opinion, will break through all concrete walls with his head, will be very high. Most people still do not distinguish democracy from the power of the "democrats," and when building new legislation, it will be necessary to fiercely defend the former from the latter.

And what will happen to all these Sobyanins, Mishustins, or Surkovs? As you know, I was friends with the latter for a long time.

I never was friends with Surkov, I worked with him. Why should I stick to this whole story if it's simply not true? Surkov made every effort at the time to prevent me from becoming a deputy of the State Duma, and later in2011, he ensured the dissolution of the committee on information policy so that I wouldn't lead it as expected and wouldn't interfere with internet policy. In the end, I was even declared the main "internet censor"! Our audience often confuses work and friendly relationships.

I had working relationships with all the leaders of the state, including Sobyanin. Sobyanin is an outstanding manager, a very competent leader. But all these people, despite their real talents, are still enemies because they work on the dark side of power. As for Surkov, I see no reason at all to do anything other than bring him to trial for shaping the political system that exists. The question regarding Sobyanin is more complicated because if he joins the side of the revolution - and he very well might - we will have to approach this issue more creatively.

It seems that you yourself were involved in the construction of this system, if I believe your detailed profile in "Meduza".

I can also tell you as a deputy in Khamovniki that you were building the Sobyanin system there. But that's not true! Just because I was a deputy in the State Duma doesn't mean I am the architect of this system. I was a consistent opposition deputy and have never worked for this government, unlike most of the current "oppositionists".

Well, what about "Skolkovo"?

This is the construction of an innovation center, a project that I initiated in the hope of consolidating long-term peaceful evolutionary changes towards innovation, democracy, openness, and a pro-Western choice for Russia. And we also need to look at the contribution of various factors to the emergence of the "swamp protests" of 2011-2012. I believe that one of the main reasons for this was the creation of a fairly serious innovation and high-tech layer, which was greatly influenced by Dmitry Medvedev's economic modernization policy - of which I was one of the architects, and "Skolkovo" was an important element in it.

But, be that as it may, it is still necessary to distinguish between topics where you work as a professional, an expert, and where you are a political player. I am proud that I have a serious managerial and investment experience behind me, experience in starting and implementing large ambitious projects both in business and in the state. Few opposition members have anything similar.

But I have never been a politician on the side of the government in my life. Moreover, some of our now quite radical colleagues in the opposition previously held a much more moderate position, while I, on the contrary, started my political path with the "Left Front" movement. Of course, personally, I have always taken a pragmatic line, believing that we should try to get the most out of the current situation, rather than just standing in a white coat and saying that everything around is crap.

I am still standing in this position. I communicate with everyone, including ideological opponents. And I believe that this is right, this is how a politician should behave. And for deputies, it is even a professional duty.

Pragmatism means, among other things, asking Surkov for permission to participate in rallies in2011?

You are twisting everything again. I went to Surkov not to ask for permission. When we started working on "Skolkovo" - precisely because we were ideological opponents and knew it - we agreed that we would not force each other politically. I do not pressure him and do not try to lobby any political issues through him. He does not try to pull me into his camp, although our communication with him started with an attempt to bribe, as mentioned in the article in "Meduza".

Part of the agreement with Surkov was that if the political situation becomes such that our further cooperation is impossible, then we should tell each other about it without any tricks. Therefore, as an honest girl, I came and told him about my intention to organize and lead a rally on December10. He replied, "Consider yourself free from any obligations, go and do what you think is right." I am grateful to him for this, and he is grateful to me for subsequently saving him from prison in the "Skolkovo" case. But this did not make us friends, or buddies, or even like-minded people. He created a criminal system and sooner or later he will answer for it.

About you recently there was an article in the Washington Post titled "Can this person overthrow Putin?".

Oh, by the way, I'll brag that recently an even more impressive article came out in the Daily Express on the same topic.

Daily Express is, in my opinion, a tabloid, right?

Yes, but like the Washington Post, the entire elite reads it (laughs).

The article in the Washington Post is not very encouraging.

It's a cool article. It was written by David Ignatius, a very important person in American politics. He can probably be compared to Andrei Kolesnikov, and the president definitely reads him too. As a significant figure in American journalism, he made all the disclaimers - that he doesn't actually agree with our methods, that it's very dangerous, but look how interesting it is! I believe this is the maximum possible that can be obtained in a government publication.

He writes there that you told him that you compare yourself to Charles de Gaulle. Is that true?

When you asked me about Kerensky or Lenin, I wanted to tell you about de Gaulle in response, but I didn't dare. I don't want to compare myself to any historical figures as individuals, but I compare my actions to their actions or the technologies they used to achieve results. And especially with what they did wrong.

So, the analogy with de Gaulle is the most accurate because he had exactly the structure that we are trying to build. It is the armed forces on the front as part of the broad anti-Putin coalition "Ramstein," it is the resistance movement in the rear and a political alternative that turns into civilian power after victory. This is exactly what de Gaulle did at the time with the money and under the wing of the English.

In opposition circles, many consider you a trickster. Do you consider yourself one?

What does trickster mean?

An adventurer who lives cheerfully, does various things, can deceive just to be on the crest of the wave. This is a literary archetype.

Adventurer, probably yes. Revolution is, in any case, undoubtedly an adventure. In a good sense of the word. As for deceiving, absolutely not. Baron Munchausen is known not for flying to the Moon, but for never lying (laughs). And he is ready to die for this truth and dream. And to do it with joy and a smile.

I consider myself a very consistent person, but one who uses different opportunities and is very active in doing so. And, of course, I am the most inclusive Russian oppositionist, capable of negotiating with people from opposite sides of the spectrum. This, of course, leads to the fact that in opposition circles, where they are used to thinking in black or white, they call me "ambiguous". This is the most common epithet applied to me. It does hurt me, but what can you do...

I actually wanted to ask, as someone who calls themselves a person of left-wing convictions, how do you have many far-right individuals in your circle?

I know how to negotiate with everyone.

But your main assistant now is Alexei Baranovsky, who was associated with BORN, and this already looks like lack of principles.

Regarding Baranovsky, I have a simple analogy. The second president of the United States, Adams - by the way, my favorite American president - began his political career by defending and achieving the acquittal of jury soldiers who participated in the "Boston Massacre," one of the starting points of the American Revolution. In other words, he sided with the revolution's opponents, essentially the police, and got them acquitted. They shot at the rebels, and no one doubted that they did it, but Adams proved that they were just doing their duty, and they were released. Many of his supporters cursed him after that, but he played a key role in ensuring international coalition for the United States during the revolution and rightfully became the second president of the country. He is a symbol of fair justice and the supremacy of law for me.

Baranovsky was a lawyer in the BORN case, where two of my undoubtedly enemies were tried, one of whom killed my close friend Stanislav Markelov. But Alexey didn't kill, he was just doing his job as a lawyer. I respect that. And now he has gone to fight in the Legion, which also shows that he is a principled person, although sometimes unbearable to communicate with.

It seems that I could have found an assistant who is closer in spirit.

Firstly, I am not looking, they come on their own. Secondly, I cannot say that in Ukraine there is such a great choice of Russians to work with. I have always considered my strength to be the ability to build teams, but now because of the war, I have a severe shortage of people.

But even in Ukraine, your reputation is ambiguous. In the press, you are considered both an FSB agent and your words about Crimea being Russian land and should be part of Russia are remembered.

I then spoke about how Crimea, in fairness, could and should have been Russian, but we agreed to recognize it as part of Ukraine in exchange for nuclear weapons. And what Russia did is both immoral by standards and a crime by law. What can we even talk about, what words? The voting in the State Duma clearly determines which side you are on. If I believed that Crimea was Russian, I would not have voted against it, I would not have put myself at great risk. Many accusers always had everything in order with words, but actions were lacking. It's usually the opposite for me.

No, I have a very good reputation in Ukraine, although there are always people who say, "A good Russian is a dead Russian." There are very few of them. Just walk with me on the streets of Kiev to understand what a good reputation I have here. As for the "agents," everyone who is supposed to, has already organized polygraphs for me. Otherwise, I would not have the opportunity to engage in the activities I am doing now.

If you are currently Putin's number one enemy, why are you still alive? I saw that in Europe you walk without security.

When I stay in one place for a long time, of course, I have security. But the main danger is still there, where there is war, in Ukraine, and I have very serious security here. There have already been three attempts [to kill me].

Lately?

I won't comment on that.

Many employees of your media outlet "Morning of February" accused you of not paying their salaries. Why did this happen?

There was one troublemaker who came to earn money, considering me a young oligarch. He incited people to revolt, and eventually we had to get rid of him.

But everything is working, and everyone is getting paid. In Ukraine, there are difficulties with money in general, there are various currency restrictions, and in all media outlets, not just media, there are delays in salary payments, but the main thing is that these obligations are fulfilled in the end. There are difficulties, yes, we have to maneuver.

We are at war, and since February2022, I haven't been earning, only spending the capital I've built over the years in business. I have to establish relationships with external donors, which is always stressful for me. I know how to earn, but I don't know how to ask, I have never taken a grant in my life.

You are often accused of not paying money. For example, former deputy from the Voronezh region, Nina Belyaeva, accused you of not paying her. Is this a systemic problem?

From my point of view, in political projects, people should understand that they are not working for a salary and money is a bonus for the activities we carry out. I don't have employees who come to work for a salary. Everyone comes to work for an idea, but since everyone needs to live somehow, we find the money for them to live on. If someone comes who only works for a salary, they don't last long in this system.

And Nina Belyaeva is just an unfortunate mentally ill person with whom there has never been and was never planned to be any employment relationship. Actually, she started attacking us when she found out about it.

You are talking about difficulties with salary, but recently you bought autographed stamps from Zaluzhny for8,000 euros at an auction. So you do have money!

Yes, I earned them before the war and now I am spending them. In this case, I would have spent this money on various things on the front anyway, but I wanted to help my colleagues from the FSR to maximize the involvement of other participants so that they would also raise their bids. In general, it worked out - they exceeded the initial fundraising plan for this auction by more than twice.

Here you can just remember the fee of750 thousand euros from "Skolkovo", right?

No, of course not. There was no fee there, there was compensation for current expenses - where did all these "lectures" come from! In 2014, I ended up in the States with a capital of 21 dollars and 25 cents. I have explained this many times. No, I mean what I earned in Trident and other investment projects after 2016.

Why don't you focus more on business?

Certainly, the entrepreneurial spirit is strong in me, but there are only24 hours in a day, and the nature of my current activities does not allow me to engage in business.

And what about the Trident and Lottery.com story?

Yes, it ended successfully. In December 2020, I think, we closed Trident, so overall I participated in three successful projects with companies going public on NASDAQ before the invasion began.

They write on the internet that lawsuits for fraud were filed against you as a representative of Lottery.com.

In America, in public companies, this is a typical situation when there are legal disputes, especially when there is a sharp fluctuation in the exchange rate. My task was to attract money there. Money was attracted there, the company is operating, there was significant growth after the IPO. Further questions are not for me, but for the company, with which I am no longer involved. People have their own difficulties in business, their own disputes with investors, and in the process, all the people who have ever been involved in taking them public are mentioned. But it's a good business there, so I'm sure everything will be fine for them.

You recently expressed the opinion that entry into Europe should only be allowed for those Russians who can prove that they finance the Legion of Freedom of Russia.

Assistance should be provided to those Russians who have been exposed to real risk, who have personally participated in the struggle. Those who simply want to leave for a better life and not participate in this nightmare do not need help.

If the Baltic countries and Europe in general want to defend themselves and see Russian arrivals as a threat, it is their right to restrict the entry of any foreign citizens into their territory. It is clear that at the moment, Russia and all its citizens are seen as aggressors by them, although this is unfair to many.

Other countries are willing to help those who have actively done something in their interest of security, which is quite logical. I have always helped and continue to help those people who have done something. As for those who have done nothing and just want to complain, I'm sorry. It's your right, but my task is the opposite: to convince as many people as possible to stay and fight.

Parallelly, I understand that you advocate for lifting sanctions on Friedman and other comrades, while ordinary opposition members cannot leave Russia in their own car.

I advocate for the result of sanction policy to be the transition of people to the side of good. Please do not compare me to Volkov and his company, who lobbied for the lifting of sanctions on Friedman for money, saying how good he is. I have never engaged in, do not engage in, and will not engage in such activities. I have always advocated for imposing sanctions on them, not for lifting them.

But sanctions must have meaning. Bad people will not change, but out of purely self-interest, they can become useful. If someone is sanctioned, these individuals must speak out against the war, stop paying taxes to Russia, and start helping Ukraine to win this war. Three simple, understandable conditions, the same for oligarchs and ordinary citizens.

After that, sanctions and other restrictions should indeed be lifted, and protection should be provided. Sanctions are not punishment, they are policy. But they should only be lifted after they fulfill these conditions, even if it is for selfish reasons, and by transitioning to the side of good, they will thereby save lives. There are no good people there. They are all shit. Friedman's current behavior clearly demonstrates this. It is good that he unintentionally showed who in the opposition is ready to serve this shit and take his dirty money. We in Ukraine have taken note.

Can Ukraine still win?

We will definitely win. Good always triumphs over evil.

But that's not true.

It is definitely true. Good always triumphs over evil. Always.

Oh no!

If that were not true, then we would be living under fascism and dictatorship.

We are living under fascism and dictatorship.

I live in a democracy, in a free country. And the fact that Russians live under fascism and dictatorship is a temporary fluctuation that we will cure. Although this requires not therapeutic, but surgical intervention. Ambulances are already armored and fueled. The main thing is to survive!

Project publications reflect solely the authors' opinion, which may not coincide with the position of the Kennan Institute or the Wilson Center.