Interview to the “I Gryanul Gram” YouTube channel

Grigory Yavlinsky’s website, 11.08.2025

Broadcast of 8 August 2025

First, about the most important thing.

If we set the task of developing not just an agreement on a temporary ceasefire, but a strategic solution on the ways and methods of advancing toward stable and long-term peace, then it is important to discuss the root causes of the tragic conflict between Russia and Ukraine, as well as a fundamentally different security system in Europe and a new concept of nuclear deterrence in the world.

You can read about what is now vitally important and what Russia and the US should discuss in bilateral negotiations here.

Certainly, the meeting in Anchorage will discuss the Russian-Ukrainian conflict — a ceasefire. And although General Mark Milley, former Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, is not Donald Trump’s partner, it is possible that the US President may recollect General Milley’s words from November 2022, the essence of which was about saving hundreds of thousands of lives: “There has to be a mutual recognition that military victory […] is maybe not achievable through military means, so therefore you need to turn to other means,” This, incidentally, coincided both in timing and essence with our position (see “Just Stop!”). Unfortunately, at that time virtually no one even wanted to hear this…

However, in the format of the upcoming meeting in Alaska, it won’t be possible to make serious final decisions on the Russian-Ukrainian conflict — without the participation of Europe and Ukraine, it is impossible to build a new European security system. Russia and the US may possibly agree on some starting positions for future negotiations involving Ukraine.

Given how the Anchorage meeting was initiated and organised, I think Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump will be particularly actively discussing topics of economic cooperation between Russia and the US. For example, the development of natural resources in the Arctic (which is why they conceived the meeting in Alaska). This is a large and profitable direction. Especially in energy: according to estimates, 13% of the world’s undiscovered oil deposits and 30% of gas reserves are located in the Arctic zone. Russia controls approximately half of these resources. Since ice melting has been actively going on for several decades, the Northern Sea Route could cut transportation time between Asia and Europe in half. This is very profitable. The meeting may also discuss various large business projects involving other minerals and rare earth elements.

Most likely, they will also discuss extending the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) — its term expires in February of next year.

It is important that the meeting of the Russian and US presidents ensures progress toward ending the Russian-Ukrainian tragedy and serves as the beginning of building a new system of global security.

***

Grigory Yavlinsky spoke in an interview to the “I Gryanul Gram” YouTube channel about the necessity of immediate conclusion of a ceasefire agreement, nuclear threat and possible negotiations between Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump.

Grigory Yavlinsky: Hello, haven’t seen you for a long time.

Vadim Radionov: Yes, and we have the opportunity to talk with you today. I want to begin with a quote. I have a book here, this is Bunin’s “Cursed Days”. A book that many have re-read, especially in recent years. And there are such words: “The Russian Vedomosti paper is closed… Many think that Savinkov will kill Lenin. The ‘Press Commissioner’ Podbelsky closed and brought to trial the Fonar paper – “for placing articles that bring anxiety and panic to the population”. What care for the population constantly robbed and killed!” Does what Bunin wrote a hundred years ago remind us of something happening today?

Grigory Yavlinsky: No, in such cases what troubles and worries me most is understanding the reasons why this happened. Well, the thing is obvious, what is there to discuss? But “why” [is important]? Because without answering the question “why?” it will be impossible to subsequently get out of this situation. It will be repeated again, and it will be very bad. The main question is “why?” And the question “why?”, unfortunately, is hardly discussed.

Vadim Radionov: And why, in your view [all this is happening]? Why did this happen?

Grigory Yavlinsky: In my view, this is obvious: because Russia could not carry out reforms in the 1990s. That is it. Because the reforms… It carried out the reforms in such a way that [today] Russia has no independent judicial system, Russia has no independent parliament, Russia has no independent press, almost none at all anymore. That is how the reforms were carried out, and that is how they were completed, and such a result was obtained. And you know perfectly well how they were carried out. First, there was hyperinflation of 2,600%, then criminal privatisation, and refusal to assess Stalinism for ten years of the 1990s. Well, that’s it.

This was the foundation, became the foundation of Vladimir Putin’s rise to power, and this was the foundation he came to stand on. He was brought there artificially, led by the hand. And now, unfortunately, many of those who did this, they left, and are now as if opposition. But what’s the point? You need to understand the reason. Because there is another question, but we are unlikely to be able to discuss it now: why were reforms carried out this way and not otherwise? This is also a very big and serious question. And this question already extends, say, to the United States, Europe, the International Monetary Fund, financing, making such decisions, and choosing precisely this direction. Without answers to these questions, the risk that all this will go on indefinitly and will be repeated is very great.

Vadim Radionov: But can we say – I have just quoted Ivan Bunin, the 1920s, and the Bolsheviks’ rise to power – that essentially the Bolsheviks never left, but there was a chance in the 1990s that this story would finally end? And so that they didn’t dissolve in this space.

Grigory Yavlinsky: Yes, you are right. Moreover, what was then called reforms (well, let us say, criminal privatisation), these were Bolshevik methods, that’s what they were. When this is done not according to law, not in the interests of all citizens, but in the interests of some groups and bases on some limited idea. Well, actually, that is why your assessment in this respect is correct. But why I wanted to emphasise this, particularly in your broadcast – because without an honest and deep answer to this question, the situation will repeat all the time and it won’t be eliminated. When the opportunity arises to do something, a tragic story may develop – when all this may repeat again. Therefore, now is the moment when these key questions need to be answered honestly.

Vadim Radionov: So you agree with Maria Pevchikh? She made the film “Traitors” about the 1990s, which caused great resonance.

Grigory Yavlinsky: Not everything is there, not everything.

Vadim Radionov: But in general do you agree with what she made?

Grigory Yavlinsky: Partially they picture it correctly there. Well, I can’t say that I agree, besides, I didn’t watch it entirely. But not everything that was happening then is there, and not all reasons are explained completely. And this is insufficient. Because it [the film] is still oriented in a certain political way. It has a political character, and I am now talking about a broader approach – historical. This is a different system. These are different political groups, and they fight abroad. One group left [Russia], and another group left [Russia]. They devour each other there and make films for this. But this is insufficient to explain the whole reason and the nature of the problem. But there are a number of correct considerations there.

Vadim Radionov: Do you feel your responsibility for the 1990s? Grigory Yavlinsky’s “500 Days” programme. That is, you are also in some sense a symbol of these…

Grigory Yavlinsky: Well, of course, I didn’t cope. I actually read classified US documents that were published quite recently, which discuss how to ensure that my programme [500 Days Plan for reforms in Russia] was not implemented. They are declassified 30 years later. And this [discussion transcribed in the papers] happened in the White House. This was the US National Security Council, it discussesed my meeting with the US President. And they said that everything had to be done so that Gorbachev and Yeltsin did not use this programme, but used another programme. Because – it was said directly there – ‘we are interested in these reforms not being successful’. Well, the meaning there is such – not being sufficiently successful. Well, this must be understood.

That’s why Gorbachev, and then Yeltsin, first supported the reforms and the 500 Days plan, which you ask me about. But there was not only the 500 Days plan. There were both 500 Days, and a treaty between [Soviet] republics on creating an economic union, and creating a common currency. There was a lot of everything. It envisaged privatisation that was honest, and the [entire] project was honest. There was a big package. Well, it was pushed aside and they went another way. Well, where they came – this is what you ask about – this is what exists today. That’s where they came. So this must be understood and these questions must be answered honestly. But this has not been done yet. Well, that’s it. I hope the next generation will sort all this out.

Vadim Radionov: I would like to quote [writer] Ivan Bunin again. Here is what he writes in the “Cursed Days”: “The most sacred of titles, the title “human”, is dishonoured as never before. The Russian person is also dishonoured, – and what would it be, where would we turn our eyes, if there were no “ice marches”! And here is dehumanisation, which, it seems to me, is happening at some insane speed. Human life, attitude to a person, to another person, all this is changing at some breakneck speed. Although it would seem we are in the 21st century and it should be different. Have you observed a decline in this perception of humans generally and the value of human life in Russia?

Grigory Yavlinsky: Look. I think it was in January 2024, if you remember (this was, I think, our last meeting), when we discussed ceasefire, right?

Vadim Radionov: Yes.

Grigory Yavlinsky: Right. And I spoke about the fact that the meaning of ceasefire is to stop killing people. Remember what the reaction was? From all sides, the only person of that time who supported this idea [of ceasefire] was the Pope – that’s all, no one else. Well, and you are asking me… So this is happening everywhere now, this topic is not discussed at all, it is used as an argument. But to say that the goal of today is to stop killing people, children – I don’t know what to say – old people, women, and stop destruction of the future – this is not a topic for discussion at all. The only person who speaks about this with grins, if I may put it this way, is Donald Trump. But he speaks about this without content, he says this simply as a thesis. His thesis is that this must be stopped, but where is the content? What is the content? You see, it is impossible to talk about a ceasefire agreement without content.

“Ceasefire agreement” is only a title, but what about the content? Well, here is the answer to your question. This was against the background of your broadcast. And all this proved to be true in these 18 months. Everything we discussed with you, all the questions you asked, and how we discussed them, and my answers – everything was confirmed. And today all problems still remain, they have not vanished. Why? Because the topic that people are being killed is not the main one – for all of Europe, in Europe, from where you are broadcasting this interview with me, they don’t even discuss this there. They say “we must go on, we must continue everything, we must keep doing this”. But what is the price? The person [Yabloko’s Lev Shlosberg] who spoke about this topic more than other people and formulated this construction (“the party of other people’s blood”) – now the main thing we are engaged in is to support him and help him, because he is already under arrest.

Vadim Radionov: This is Lev Shlosberg?

Grigory Yavlinsky: Yes, this is Lev Shlosberg. And his theme “the party of other people’s blood” [those who urge other people to fight and kill each other while they themselves remain in safe places] is precisely what you asked me about. But look how much mud was slung at him, how he was criticised and so on and so forth. And this is also a new circumstance, apparently connected with different factors. It is impossible to talk about this, especially and particularly in connection with… to talk about this calmly, especially in connection with Lev Shlosberg and what is happening to him. And we, if we are talking about Yabloko, we have many people who are now in a very difficult situation – in prison, serving sentences and so on. A large number – six, seven, eight people. Court hearings have already taken place, and they are all convicted or about to be convicted. This is all very dramatic thing.

And what did they fight for? For only one thing – so that to stop the killing of people, and all the talks should go only after it. Well, today they conduct polls, finally 58% of people directly answer this question that they agree with this. I mean in Russia. But why did politicians fail to think about this? I am not talking about Russia now, I am talking about European politicians and so on. Well, this painful process goes with such difficulties and pain, and takes so long… Very hard and very painful. Until there is understanding, at least at the level of opinion leaders, if I may put it this way, it will be impossible to get out of this situation.

Vadim Radionov: But today, that is, 18 months after our discussion, the question of ceasefire and air truce is still being discussed. There are many different speculations. I understand there are many information leakages, speculations, and just empty words. But they started talking about this. I just remember that both you and Lev Shlosberg said, “The main thing is to stop bloodshed, and content will be [discussed] later. Stop shooting.” I remember this phrase. Today I see this already discussed.

Grigory Yavlinsky: Yes, today they do it. We need to understand that there are different moments. Then, when we talked (this was the end of 2023 – beginning of 2024, and even earlier, in 2022, autumn 2022), there were the most suitable moments [for ceasefire] (especially the end of 2022) to do precisely what you just said. This would have been a very correct moment. True, now these negotiations are going on, but, first of all, I repeat again, what is the price? Can you imagine, how many people died during this time, from autumn 2022, when I first sent this message [about ceasefire], by the way, to Rome, to the Pope, to the Vatican, and until we talked with you in winter 2024?!

This is the first. And the second – conditions change, circumstances change, and the same task becomes much more difficult to solve [with time]. You are absolutely right. Fortunately, after Donald Trump came to power, when he became US President, the topic of ceasefire began to be discussed at the top level. Europe changed its attitude, but this was only this spring, as you know. And they all started talking differently about the need to do this. And now it turned out that these negotiations have been going on for a long time. But you know that negotiations on Vietnam went on for years, and the war continued, while the negotiations went on in Paris, by the way.

And negotiations on Korea lasted for 18 months. There were hundreds of meetings, hundreds of negotiations, until they agreed on what? On ceasefire. Simply on ceasefire, and there was nothing else there. And it has not been resolved to this day, but people have been living [in peace] for 70 years already. Well, so they live. Yes. There were similar events in Europe. As you know perfectly well, there was the same discussion in the Mediterranean [on Cyprus]. Also ceasefire and nothing more. In other words, negotiations are going on now, but they can go on for quite a long period. There were moments when this could have been achieved faster, and today it needs to be discussed. This is about the ceasefire agreement, I would like to emphasise, precisely about this agreement. When I was talking about Europe, I meant Cyprus. Now about a ceasefire agreement. These are technical conditions for troops separation, control, observation, and control mechanisms. These are guarantees, these are facilities in the rare and much more. Much more.

And all these things in a ceasefire agreement need to be discussed. But such a meeting as is forthcoming now between Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump, well, they are unlikely to discuss such [things]… And they are not ready, nothing is prepared. So this will continue to drag on. But now I would like to tell you one important thing. You probably remember that tomorrow will be 80 years since Nagasaki, the nuclear strike on Nagasaki [in 1945]. So I would like to tell you that these negotiations about ceasefire and all this connected with Ukraine are elements of the modern issue about nuclear threat. That is, the topic is much broader than simply technical questions and so on. This is about strategic security. This is about Helsinki [the Helsinki Accords of 1975 on the détente between the East and the West], about the accords that were reached in Helsinki. That’s it.

Therefore, when you ask me what can be said about the end of war, we have just discussed one thing – ceasefire agreement. And it seems to me that the topic… Remember, that three groups need to be made [for negotiations between Russia and Ukraine]: one on technical issues, the second on prisoners and exchanges, on humanitarian issues, and the third on political issues. Right, it is absolutely correct. Why? Because this agreement needs to be prepared, it needs to be discussed. So far, unfortunately, nothing is being done at such a level. Regarding Donald Trump and his representatives, this is completely different. They all are very far from this. And my problem is that Europe should have filled Trump with content, but it does not do this. And this is a big political and diplomatic mistake. It behaves as it behaved in Munich [the Munich Security Conference in 2025]: cries, swears, takes offence at JD Vance and so on.

But where is the content? And this is the second substantive problem… But then even bigger questions follow. If moving towards peace, towards the end of war, we need to answer the question about the causes of war. We started talking about causes with you, why our reforms went this way – that is another story. But here [we should talk] about the causes of war. This topic also has not been discussed, but it exists. We won’t go into deep into it now, but its essence – and I would like to convey this message – is that it is necessary to talk about causes. Then negotiations about truce will begin. And then the third part will follow – this will be transition to the question about peace. But these will be strategic negotiations already, these will be new principles of security. Because an era has ended, and we have entered…

It is already 80 years [since the end of the WWII], the era has ended, we have entered a new era, and now a different question will arise. The question will arise about security principles of nuclear powers. Now there are nine nuclear powers. When Helsinki [accords] took place, there were essentially two nuclear powers (well, there was also France), and now there are nine. So no one knows yet how to conduct negotiations when there are nine [nuclear] powers. There are new weapons and fundamentally new missiles, [there are problems] how to place them, how to do all this… You see, an era has ended, 80 years has passed, it has ended, and the new era is obscure.

And finally: thank you for inviting me and giving me the opportunity to speak, this is your rare virtue. Now they usually don’t let one speak…

So, since one era has ended, what is coming? That era that was created in 1945, or rather after 1945, it has ended. The UN stops functioning, the Security Council, and G7 no longer function properly, not at all, NATO… The EU is in question, there are big problems in the Middle East. The era is ending. You know history: when an era ends, very often everything descends into chaos, and then nations start looking for a Führer. There is another way out of this situation. This is if you know where to go, then you can get out of chaos. However, the topic about where to go, what to do next, how the world should look in 2050, is not discussed at all. But tariffs are discussed [instead].

On tariffs, I can’t help but smile, what struck me most was that Switzerland received the highest tariffs (39%). I never expected it would be Switzerland. And why [did it happen]? Because of medicines, because they produce a huge amount of medicines. And so on, this is another topic, I just couldn’t help mentioning it. Well. So, the question is where to move, where the world should move in 2050. Why am I talking about this now? Because without answering these questions, it will be impossible to achieve a real peace agreement (about peace, not about just ending war, not about truce, but about peace). You need to see the future, you need to see the perspective. This is what, as you remember, Winston Churchill, Franklin D. Roosevelt and the Soviet Union representative [Joseph Stalin] talked about in Yalta in 1945. They talked about this there. But today this topic – about the future – is not discussed at all.

Vadim Radionov: You have mentioned Korea and that the Korean War ended. But there has been no peace treaty.

Grigory Yavlinsky: It did not end, it stopped.

Vadim Radionov: Yes, it stopped. But it stopped when Joseph Stalin died.

Grigory Yavlinsky: Yes.

Vadim Radionov: More than a million words were spoken at negotiations before Stalin died. And Stalin died…

Grigory Yavlinsky: Yes, the Soviet Union agreed that it was possible to stop [the war], right, and told China that “let’s stop”. Right.

Vadim Radionov: And about the reason in the Kremlin then and the reason in the Kremlin now. It seems to me that it is concentrated on a certain person, after whose disappearance, due to various circumstances, the process will go completely differently.

Grigory Yavlinsky: I don’t know. Because then they accepted those conditions that had developed there and fixed them. Do you think that now those you have in mind are ready to fix today’s conditions? Then why don’t negotiations begin? They keep saying “not yet”. That is, this is a complex process, long-term, it can’t be absolutely similar [to the previous one]. One can’t be absolutely similar to another. Certainly, personalities matter, but not only personalities. Because problems do exist, causes do exist, and the does content exist. And the question is not only about the causes. Because it can turn out even worse. And then you will tell me “well, I thought that… but it turned out the opposite”. Therefore, the essence of the matter is very important. Imagine when JD Vance becomes President of the United States, imagine that… It has direct relation to this.

Vadim Radionov: Well, here I agree, we don’t know how it may be. But when Lavrenty Beria after Stalin’s death pretended to take power (he didn’t succeed, as we know, Nikita Khrushchev replaced him as a result), but he announced liberalisation. He wanted to completely rebuild Stalin’s system – that was Lavrenty Beria.

Grigory Yavlinsky: Yes. As you know, quite recently they have censured Nikita Khrushchev [who having become the leader of the USSR after Joseph Stalin’s death condemned Stalin’s crimes]. Well, in the sense that the Communist Party of the Russian Federation has [recently] censured Nikita Khrushchev and all his decisions [about Stalin]. Therefore, now the vector is different, it now goes in another direction. And no one did anything… And by the way, can you explain how this could happen? Ten years of reforms were carried out, an endless number of public organisations, international organisations worked [in Russia]. All sorts organisations worked there – everyone worked there. But did at least someone raise the question that a constitutional, state decision about Stalinism, about the Soviet period needed to be adopted? Did someone at least say that a package of laws was needed, like those about the Holocaust, to never allow this again. No, nothing of this was done. And it was not even formulated, and the question [about inadmissibility of Stalinism] was not even raised. Today the only assessment of Stalinism is Nikita Khrushchev’s 1956 report. And that’s it. Why did no one, neither in Europe, nor in America – no one say anything about this?

Vadim Radionov: But they spoke about it in Europe. And in the Baltic states they spoke about it, and the secret protocols of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact [of 1939, establishing Stalin’s and Hitler’s spheres of influence across Eastern Europe] were published in the Baltic states (Mavrik Vulfson showed them).

Grigory Yavlinsky: It would be eager to learn if you could tell me who among European leaders told Boris Yeltsin that this had to be done. When you find out – please, let me know. Who among US leaders said that this had to be done? If you find out – please, tell me. I don’t know this, I don’t know a single such… That this was [said] at the level of experts, historians, and analysts – I heard about this. But I didn’t hear such a question being raised at the level of first persons. And maybe about this…

Vadim Radionov: Condemnation of the Soviet Union. Václav Havel, for example, who also said that these seven people who came out [to protest on the Red Square in 1968 against the USSR invading Checholovakia] when there was the Prague Spring, to protest against the suppression of the Prague Spring, this was not about Stalin, but about the Soviet system.

Grigory Yavlinsky: No. These are discussions, and I am talking about a constitutional decision.

Vadim Radionov: But this is Russia’s problem. Russia should have itself…

Grigory Yavlinsky: And I am talking about Russia.

Vadim Radionov: Europe, let’s say, liberated itself. Eastern Europe.

Grigory Yavlinsky: Well, it liberated itself – and well done. I am simply saying that if today everything is left as Russia’s problems in general, well, then there is no need to worry about consequences. I personally believe that in the modern world there is nothing separate. There is no Russia separate from Europe, I personally think so. I believe that the world has developed in such a way that you need to talk about the future looking at the world as a whole, especially at the world where human rights and human dignity are the core and key moment. That is what I think. That this is the same for everyone, that this is important for all of Europe, for those called the West.

This is a key question, and I would like it to spread more in the world. Because I personally believe, and this is my point of view, that there is nothing more important than human life, human freedom, human dignity, and respect for humans – there is nothing more [important]. This is the main thing. Paths can be different, there can be multipolarity, but the essence of modern life in the 21st century is this. Precisely human life, their freedom, their dignity, their rights, and their opportunities – this is the meaning of the mid-21st century, and all the future must be built on this foundation. But now this is not a very topical theme in the political context. That’s it, essentially.

Vadim Radionov: And what about compulsion to awareness? Because Nuremberg… Nuremberg [Nuremberg trials over Nazi Germany in 1945-1946] wouldn’t have happened if Nazi Germany hadn’t lost. And it lost because the Allied Army turned out stronger. This is all about violence, this is all about war. This is not a story about “let’s realise what was wrong with us”. The German denazification campaign was a long and difficult process, spurred by defeat in war. If they hadn’t lost, most likely – I am just modelling and supposing  –  nothing would have happened. The same story with Stalinism. Since the Cold War… Well, here it is very… did they lose or win, and maybe so on… Well, in the sense of what to consider one’s liberation – was this victory or defeat. Such component when they force understanding and acceptance of what happened is missing now.

Grigory Yavlinsky: There were no nuclear weapons, it was a different era. You are telling about a time when they ‘shot with bows’. That’s it, this is over, and all your memories only demonstrate your intellect and knowledge, but they have a ver far-fetched association with today.

Vadim Radionov: But what to do in this situation when a country can’t lose..?

Grigory Yavlinsky: So that’s what our whole broadcast is about – what to do? Now there are nuclear weapons, there is no such solution as then anymore. And don’t be distracted by it, don’t confuse yourself and people. And regarding what to do – I am telling you. It is necessary… we return to the ceasefire agreement, which will consist of those elements we have already been discussing continuously – how many broadcasts have we had, two or three there in 18 months. The faster we do this, the faster this can be achieved.

Second – understanding the reasons why all this happened. Third – conducting strategic negotiations about the future, taking into account that now there are nine nuclear powers, and tomorrow there might already more than nine. As you know, you have all read this and seen everything that the United States did with Iran – it didn’t work out very well. But the topic remained, and all this remains. Now here. These are three elements without which it is impossible to move forward. The problem of today is that at the diplomatic level there is no understanding of these questions, and this is very bad. Therefore, this process will be very long and very painful. That’s it.

Vadim Radionov: Putin-Trump negotiations: if the meeting takes place, can they change something in this sense? That is, can agreements be reached there..?

Grigory Yavlinsky: Well, they can be positive, they can become a step in this direction. I don’t know what they will be, but answering your question, can there be negotiations [I can tell you] – yes, they can. But precisely, as you ask, there can be negotiations… a certain step in this direction. Well, let them be. But they won’t succeed in solving all these problems we have been discussing here. Because they are not ready, because no one has been preparing them, and there has been no progress in this direction.

Vadim Radionov: You know Vladimir Putin personally, you met with him, and met already after the start of the big war. Do you understand what this person is doing? That is, how… now I am not talking about moral-ethical assessments. How rational is he, in your view, in what he does? Is he predictable, capable of negotiating?

Grigory Yavlinsky: I disagree with this [his] position in principle, therefore I can’t say anything here. This is a completely different position. I disagree with [his] position in principle, I disagree with all this… with all this direction. Therefore, I participated three times in presidential elections with a completely different programme. I spoke in 2000 presidential campaign that this could happen. That since Russia experienced humiliation (this was in 2000), therefore electing such a person as Putin as President would put  Russia in front of very great risks. Both internal and external. I told this in [an interview] to Yevgeny Kiselyov in spring 2000, during the presidential campaign.

This was clear to me and my voters. In Moscow then, even considering the election fraud that was there, 25 percent or so voted for me. Well. Therefore, everything was said. Don’t think that everyone has come to understanding only now – everything was clear much earlier. The problem is only that society could not perceive this and was pushed in another direction. Well, whoever did this, let them now understand what mistakes they made. Or fail to understand – well, that’s another question.

Vadim Radionov: For many, such a crucial moment in Putin’s rule was the Kursk submarine disaster. In August this year will be 25 years, a quarter century, since this catastrophe. And what does this date and case with the submarine [which sank and the surviving part of the crew was left to die] mean to you?

Grigory Yavlinsky: Simply that human life does not have particular significance, that’s it. This was clear. They ‘simply died’. He answered then, remember, when he was in New York?

Vadim Radionov: He gave an interview to Larry King. “It sank,” he said.

Grigory Yavlinsky: “It sank”. “What happened?” – “It sank”. Well, that was the answer. But what other answer we could expect?

Vadim Radionov: And what does this case of the Kursk submarine mean to you?

Grigory Yavlinsky: I feel sorry for the people. This was a technical accident, that’s what I think. There are various myths about Americans’ role in this whole story, that someone collided with someone there. But I can’t confirm them and I don’t know whether this is of significance. I simply feel very sorry for the officers and who served on this boat. And sailors, and everyone. I simply feel very sorry for them. Their parents, their families, their children. I feel very sorry, my heart goes out to them.

Vadim Radionov: And today when you see Russian officers, the same as submariners from Kursk… I realise that this is speculation, I am now deliberately creating such a model: those young submariners, they could be 45, maybe 50 now, they quite could have been those participating in this carnage. Has your attitude generally to this phrase “Russian officer” changed today?

Grigory Yavlinsky: My heart goes out to them, I feel sorry for them. I am against the special military operation, I am against all these developments, and my heart goes out to everyone – both from this side and the other. Everything happening in Ukraine is very painful for me, very painful. Everything happening in Russia is also very painful… For me Russia and Ukraine are like the right and the left hand. It is very painful for me. Therefore, the main thing I want is ceasefire.

Vadim Radionov: And what are you doing for this today? That is, do you have opportunities?

Grigory Yavlinsky: I am telling you about this, what else can I do. I publish all this.

Vadim Radionov: Do you have opportunity to [push your ideas to] high circles?..

Grigory Yavlinsky: I tell this whole plan. My position is well known, as you know. Whether they will use this position – this is an open question. Some more time will pass, and someone else besides you will say that “you were right”. In my political life, which has lasted 35 years already, this has been repeated more than once. They say later “you were right”. But what’s the price? I would like this ceasefire agreement to be developed and adopted as quickly as possible. By the way, I, for example, support prisoner exchanges, exchanges of the wounded, exchanges of the bodies of the dead. I deal with these matters and deal with people who deal with this, we are involved in this thing. We are involved, and in this part we manage to do something – specifically, help people.

Well, that’s it. And I am categorically against those who advocate for continuation of this conflict, because this continuation in such form has no prospects. I have already told you, I am for the ceasefire agreement, understanding the causes why this happened, and conducting strategic negotiations regarding the future. Here are the three key points that need to be implemented politically.

Vadim Radionov: Here come questions from our viewers. There are many questions about Lev Shlosberg. What is going on around Lev Shlosberg, how is his condition? What do you know and what are you able to tell?

Grigory Yavlinsky: Please, support Lev Shlosberg. Two days ago we managed to resolve the problem so that he remained under house arrest – that is, not in prison, but under house arrest – well, this is the maximum of what we can do now and what we managed to achieve. He has a wonderful lawyer, he has devoted assistants, we all work in this direction. We will do everything to save him and support him. He is a very honorable and earnest person. And everyone who would like to support him, please, write letters either to Yabloko, or send letters to his regional branch, to Pskov, or send letters to his address if you know it. He is a politician of the highest level.

And I repeat again, his formula “the party of other people’s blood” largely explains the real situation in Russian politics and life. That’s it. He is a high-level politician, modern Russian politician, patriotic politician. He is a patriot of Russia, he didn’t leave the country, didn’t abandon his country. He does everything he can, and got into the most difficult situation. He should be supported. Any letter of yours or your friends, addressed to Lev Shlosberg, means help and support, extension of life, if you will. Write to him. This is what we also deal with, we deal with many things in connection with this.

Vadim Radionov: What about repressive laws, and why and how will they function now? There are many questions from our viewers about this, since these laws prohibit searching on the Internet. As they [the authorities] put it down – “extremist content” [search of such content is prohibited by law from now on], but it is unclear what is extremist content. Accordingly, [this means] “don’t search for anything”.

Grigory Yavlinsky: It is still unclear how this law will work. Apparently, this matter will lead to disconnecting the Internet. But a law about collective guilt has already been adopted – this is a very significant thing. Thank you for asking me about this. This is a very dangerous law about collective guilt. This is when a sentence to one participant [of a group or an organisation] leads to the whole organisation becoming ‘extremist’. And as soon as a sentence under Article 282.1 of the Criminal Code comes into force – than based [on a sentence to] one person the whole organisation is recognised as extremist.

That is, recognition as an extremist and extremist organisations now is not like an independent judicial processes, this is arbitrariness. Anyone can become… at any moment… And earlier this was simply adopted differently, but now this is extension of criminal responsibility. And what I would like to tell you, that this means collective guilt, this is recognition of collective guilt. Collective guilt, it will be like this… And this is very dangerous, and this is very serious. Well, and fines for searching for all sorts of materials there [in the Internet], this leads to what? To the Internet being disconnected. As in China the Internet will be controlled – and that’s it. VPNs will be controlled, all things like this. Well, this is such a vector, and things are going in this direction.

Vadim Radionov: Does this mean that Russia is moving towards even greater information isolation now?

Grigory Yavlinsky: Well, yes. Russia is moving towards an ever greater atmosphere of fear and pressure, it is heading directly there. And this is only increasing.

Vadim Radionov: And where are the limits?

Grigory Yavlinsky: They are unknown to me. Because, returning to the beginning of our conversation, in the 1990s we failed to create a society. Moreover, society was being created, but it was destroyed. I can only repeat: absence of an independent judicial system, absence of parliament, absence of independent press – this is all…  this whole foundation was laid by the reforms of the 1990s. Well, that’s it. This is the transition to chaos, simply nothing succeeded. These are dramatic circumstances, these are key problems of Russian history. And now Russian history has coincided in time with the period when the world era is transitioning from one state to who knows what other. After all, it is not accidental when the slogan sounds “Make America Great Again” – that is, back, again. Ah, again? That’s it. And, therefore, we have already left that era that we lived in, and the new one is obscure.

We are on the Titanic, and many of your colleagues are looking for the best cabin there. But this is a cabin on the Titanic – that’s it. Therefore, I say that decisions need to be made not simply about ending war, not be simply on an agreement, but taking into account strategic perspective and the world’s future. This is a big topic. This is a big, serious, and substantive topic, but hardly even discussed. There is a big problem with European diplomacy, with world diplomacy and so on. Certainly, you can talk only about Russia all the time, only there is no use from this. And who will be making good, correct policies? Where is this? Europe can’t agree with the United States. I don’t know, what shall we discuss Canada or Greenland? That’s the question. Not even Taiwan, but discussing Greenland.

Vadim Radionov: Well, while the Titanic is sailing, as [popular Russian singer] Vyacheslav Butusov sang: “And no one thought about it, while the Titanic was sailing.”

Grigory Yavlinsky: Well, at least here is the list of topics that should be discussed in general. I am not even talking about the Middle East – this is special problem. In short, my idea, which I would like to share with you, is that I’d like to draw attention to the fact that the problems Europe, Russia, Ukraine, and humanity have faced are much more complex, much more critical than people in everyday life sometimes may think about. They concern our children, and our grandchildren, and the future in general. You need to have an idea of what will be there in 2050.

Vadim Radionov: Well then, let’s put three dots here and I think we’ll return to this conversation again.

Grigory Yavlinsky: Let’s hope so. I really enjoy having serious conversations with you.

Vadim Radionov: Thank you, thank you very much!

Grigory Yavlinsky: Thank you!

Vadim Radionov: Until our next meeting, all the best to you!

Grigory Yavlinsky: Until the next meeting and all the best to you! Goodbye.

Source