What happened to Kara Murza Sr. "This happens to welders": On the versions of the disease of the lobbyist of the "Magnitsky act". Cheburek after the movie

Family

Married. Son is a journalist and politician Vladimir Kara-Murza (Jr.).

Biography

In 1981 he graduated from the Faculty of History Moscow State University specializing in "teacher of modern history".

From 1982 to 1992 he was engaged in private tutoring in history, worked as a janitor.

On TV since 1992.

In 1992-1993 - senior editor of the weekly program Evgenia Kiseleva"Itogi" on RGTRK "Ostankino" (now Channel One).

In 1993, together with Kiselev and other Itogi journalists, he moved to the first national independent television company in Russia, NTV, founded in the same year. Vladimir Gusinsky. In 1993-1995, he was a correspondent for the information service of a television company NTV.

During the conflict between the owner of the NTV television company Gusinsky and its main creditor, Gazprom, on the night of April 14, 2001, Vladimir Kara-Murza arrived at the editorial office of the TV channel on the 8th floor of the Ostankino television center, where he entered into a tough debate with representatives of Gazprom .

On the same day, together with a group of leading NTV journalists, he wrote a letter of resignation from the channel, not wanting to work "under state control", and moved to the staff of the television company Boris Berezovsky TV-6.

From May 2001 to January 2002 - author and presenter of the information and analytical program "Edges" on TV-6 channel. The last broadcast of the program took place at 23.00 on January 21, 2002, an hour before the broadcasting of the TV-6 television company was turned off by order of the bailiffs.

After the closure of TV-6, along with other journalists, including Evgeny Kiselyov and Mikhail Osokin, moved to the staff of the newly created TVS channel, which in March 2002 won the broadcasting competition and on June 1, 2002 began broadcasting on the "sixth button".

From June 2002 to June 2003, Vladimir Kara-Murza was the host of the programs "Edge", "Place of the Press", "Extinguish the Light" and "Witnesses of the Century" on the TVS channel. The TVS channel was taken off the air by order of the Ministry of Press of the Russian Federation on June 22, 2003.

Since August 2003, Vladimir Kara-Murza has been the presenter of the Now in Russia news program on the RTVi TV channel.

Since 2005, he has also been working at Radio Liberty, where he hosts the daily program Edges of Time.

In 2004, he became one of the founders of a member of the opposition "Committee-2008". Since 2009, she has been hosting a program on the RTVi channel and radio Ekho Moskvy "The Edge of the Week with Vladimir Kara-Murza".

Since December 2011, he has been leading the program "The main thing for the week with Vladimir Kara-Murza" on Network public television.

Politics

2012 - member Opposition Coordinating Council. He was noted for a number of critical articles against the Russian authorities, which clamp down on freedom of speech and the right of people to rallies. In March 2014 condemned the accession Crimea to Russia, calling it the "annexation" of the peninsula.

Since 2014, Kara-Murza has been the head of an organized. This resource, which is supposed to coordinate opposition activism, human rights and become one of the main platforms for Russian protest, does not indicate either the sources of funding (what else can be understood), or even the editorial team. However, calls to trust their publications. Kara-Murza, in addition to Russian, also has citizenship Great Britain.

At the end of May, Kara-Murza's son Vladimir Kara-Murza Jr., who is also an opposition figure, was hospitalized in a serious condition with a diagnosis of acute kidney failure. Doctors talked about an overdose of antidepressants, the father of the oppositionist said that his son was poisoned by the Russian special services because of his political activities.

Journalist and oppositionist Vladimir Kara-Murza Jr. left for rehabilitation in the United States after treatment in Moscow. At the end of May, the oppositionist was hospitalized in a serious condition with a diagnosis of acute renal failure. Doctors talked about an overdose of antidepressants, members of the oppositionist's family believe that he was poisoned. I talked about the state of health of the Sobesednik.ru journalist with his father Vladimir Kara-Murza the Elder.

- The official version was about the abuse of antidepressants.

Yes, that's what the doctors said. That supposedly these drugs reacted with drops against allergies and caused such a reaction. In my opinion, this could not lead to such a strong intoxication. In addition, the inventor of these antidepressants called me and assured me that such consequences were impossible. Of course, the attitude of our doctors to medical secrecy raises questions. Nevertheless, we are extremely grateful to the doctors of the First City, who literally performed a miracle, returned Volodya from the other world. By the way, the head doctor of the hospital personally came to see him off the plane at 7 am.

- Do you yourself still think that your son was poisoned?

- Yes, and I think that, most likely, he became an accidental victim. Volodya, of course, is a critic and opponent of the Kremlin. But those people whom he could hurt recently - Karaulov, Pushkov - are too small to avenge them in this way.

— You are talking about journalists included in the so-called sanctions "Nemtsov's list." But there was also the film "Family" about Ramzan Kadyrov.

- I think Kadyrov understands that the film was made by other people, and Volodya is just the coordinator of Open Russia. I think he remembers that Vladimir was an opponent of the war in Chechnya since 1996 and proved this position with his journalistic materials. In general, I don't think it's about Kadyrov. But I still want to say hello to our special services. Immediately after the incident, two city phones were cut off for me - allegedly by a tractor working in the yard. Then the confusion began with SMS on the cell. And what happened to the computer, I generally keep quiet. Obviously, from remote access, someone's "skillful" hands were trying to read something, dig up something. True, I never understood why.

- But you are going to somehow figure out together with the authorities why you poisoned your son?

- There is no criminal case, and we do not want to initiate it. What for? When the Golos association tries to defend the interests of its employees in Samara, searches begin in Moscow. The same goes for Nemtsov. Whose accounts were arrested, documents, computers confiscated? Not from his killers, but from himself. No, we know too well how it all ends in our country.

Now Vladimir Kara-Murza Sr. is on duty at the door of intensive care

Vladimir Kara-Murza Sr., the father of the federal coordinator of Open Russia, is now on duty near the doors of intensive care. He told MK about his son's condition. The father believes that Vladimir Kara-Murza Jr. was not poisoned this time, but the consequences of the past poisoning and everyday overwork affected his condition.

Vladimir Kara-Murza Jr.

The fact that the federal coordinator of Open Russia, Vladimir Kara-Murza Jr., was reported by his wife Evgenia on Thursday morning. He became ill, an ambulance was called, and in the early morning Vladimir was in a serious condition in the Yudin hospital.

Versions appeared in the blogosphere that Vladimir was poisoned again. Recall that in May 2015, Khodorkovsky's ally in Open Russia was also suddenly hospitalized. Then the doctors diagnosed him with "acute renal failure against the background of intoxication." Vladimir spent more than a month in a state of artificial coma. When his condition stabilized, he contacted the police, believing he had been poisoned. The investigation into this matter has not yet been completed.

"MK" contacted the father of Vladimir Kara-Murza - Vladimir Alekseevich.

I am now sitting in front of a closed door that says "Intensive Care Unit," he said. - The doctor who treated Volodya last time has now become the chief doctor of the hospital where we are. We trust this doctor, which is why we brought our son here. His mother-in-law arrived in an ambulance with him, but she had already flown to America for her granddaughter's birthday. His condition was assessed as serious, but everything will be fine. I'm just waiting for good news.

- Versions appeared in the blogosphere that your son was poisoned again ...

Doctors don't think so, and neither do I. If this time someone wanted to “soak” him, they would not have allowed him to be taken to intensive care. It's just that the poisoning two years ago did not go unnoticed. His son's health has weakened, his immunity too, and any "sneeze" can be dangerous for him.

And lately, he's also been very tired. Only one screening of his film about Nemtsov spent more than forty - in Russia and abroad. And he single-handedly prepared the “March of Memory and Pain”. I overstrained myself, I think, and there was no malicious intent on anyone's part. But everything will end well. An hour of such hassle as of late is a year of life for him. When he comes to his senses, I will advise him to stop doing all this oppositional nonsense. Let him rest, sleep, recover and be creative.

Mikhail Khodorkovsky also called on social networks not to inflate the hysteria around the hospitalization of a comrade-in-arms. “Friends, those who are worried about Volodya Kara-Murza, he has an attack, he, with the help of his wife, is in the hands of a good doctor. Let him work!" he wrote.

V.KARA-MURZA: Hello. The RTVi TV channel and the Ekho Moskvy radio station broadcast the weekly program Edges of the Week. In the studio Vladimir Kara-Murza. Watch a review of the most important events of the past 7 days and listen to the opinions of experts and guests of our program. So, in today's episode:
- The resignation of the head of the defense department caused a flurry of revelations;
- The new law on treason is fraught with another wave of spy mania;
- Is it beneficial for the Kremlin to keep a democratic administration in the White House?
- Will fundamental changes in its composition benefit the Human Rights Council?
- On the same November days of 1982, the country said goodbye to Secretary General Brezhnev, who served as the personification of political stagnation;
- The presidential entourage does not skimp on comforting news about the physical condition of the head of state.

V.KARA-MURZA: The ex-Minister of Defense, who fell into disgrace, became the object of a massive information attack. Reporting by Svetlana Gubanova.

S. GUBANOVA: Someone calls it a bad joke, and someone calls it a warning or aiming. In the absence of information about the new place of work of the ex-Minister of Defense of Russia Anatoly Serdyukov, rumors spread. Military experts right and left started commenting on the news about the appointment of Serdyukov, allegedly to the post of adviser to the head of Russian Technologies. The word to the former press secretary of the Ministry of Defense, military observer of Komsomolskaya Pravda Viktor Barants:
- More than one official representative of either the Ministry of Defense, or the government, or the State Duma did not give an answer: is it so or not. Because there was a lot of distrust that, in general, it was true, because millions of people were outraged by it. I report to this TV camera: all reports of Russian and foreign media that citizen Serdyukov A.E. is an adviser to the director of the state company Rostekhnologii, is not true.

S. GUBANOVA: Serdyukov is a witness in a number of criminal cases. There are 10 episodes in the case of Oboronservis alone. The hour is not even: today or tomorrow he will turn from a witness into an accused. There can be no question of any position. Here, it would seem, one could relax, put an end to it, but I want to put commas all the time. Yes, the flow of lies has been interrupted, but there are still no official comments. There is no answer to the question: is this a real fight against corruption or a habitual ostentatious one? /V.Baranets:/
- Excuse me, I often do not understand these questions: “Is this a real fight against corruption, or is it a selective strike against corrupt officials”? You know, today we are faced with a simple and clear fact: a fox was found in the government chicken coop, which drags chickens. This fox was caught by the hand and now they are trying to ask her who she led, where she stole what. There are a lot of questions to this so-called "fox".

S. GUBANOVA: Viktor Baranets assures that in this situation it is not worth smiling and savoring. This can be called any word, but there is no doubt: it is Serdyukov who is directly responsible for everything that happened in his department during these ill-fated years, and no matter what pinpoint strikes are inflicted now, punishment will follow.
- The struggle, if he is attacked, did not begin with some 33-bit pawns, but with one of the key figures of the Russian military department. Yes, you know, we are somehow used to the fact that our fight against corruption in Russia often follows the rules. Someone is pardoned, someone is punished, in this case we are talking about a specific figure, with the knowledge of which criminal and corrupt transactions were carried out.

S. GUBANOVA: What do we have now? A number of people were arrested because of the collapse of Serdyukov. They agreed to cooperate with the investigation and give confessions. Still would. It is already obvious that the initiator of many criminal schemes was the former head of the Department of Property Relations of the Ministry of Defense Elena Vasilyeva, Serdyukova's immediate deputy. The investigation had a great many questions for her. /V.Baranets:/
- Is it true that you came up with such a combination when dozens of hectares of land were sold at the price of toilet paper? Is it true that you sold capital buildings that were supposed to cost hundreds of millions of rubles for tens of thousands? Is it true that 3 hectares of land in the Krasnodar Territory were confiscated at your suggestion, and then they began to build an object on these hectares, almost a night brothel, for which almost 100 million rubles were taken from the military treasury, and sold for 362 million?

S. GUBANOVA: However, the investigation learned that Ms. Vasilyeva was pregnant, and it would be inhumane to torment her in such a position with such ridiculous questions. When the corruption scandal first broke out, some officials even tried to justify Serdyukov: a civilian could not lead the military department. He was not a priori capable of reforms, he personally repeatedly asked Putin to resign, but the personnel issue turned out to be an unambiguously resolved issue. /V.Baranets:/
- Let's tell each other the merciless truth. Anatoly Eduardovich Serdyukov is a great specialist in the quality of furniture, in the quality of a profitable sale or purchase. He is a great publican, he is excellent at collecting taxes. Anatoly Eduardovich Serdyukov played an outstanding role in the defeat of Khodorkovsky's empire, for which, as a bonus, he received the post of Minister of Defense.

S. GUBANOVA: Yes, President Putin, calling Serdyukov an excellent manager, set him a specific task: to saddle the financial flows, and Serdyukov and his team did it. Only here's the trouble - he confused his pocket with the state one. Svetlana Gubanova. Andrey Pleskunov. RTVi. Moscow.

V.KARA-MURZA: Corruption in the defense department has not been a secret even for the uninitiated for a long time. The long-awaited fall, as it seemed before, of the all-powerful official immediately added to the number of his critics all those who had previously applauded any actions of the Kremlin's favorite. During the campaign, which was accompanied by shaking out dirty laundry, the flaws of the reforms were deliberately exposed to the public, says Konstantin Remchukov, owner of Nezavisimaya Gazeta:
- If earlier the circle of specialists was immersed in this topic - the nature, direction and quality of military reforms, then with publicizing the fact of corruption and showing documentary filming of rings and apartments in the apartment of the head of Rosoboronservis, popular anger was connected, as it were. And people's anger at the fact that officials of such a rank are so fat, of course, creates a mass sensation. And the commentators give this mass character a sense of national condemnation, as it were.

V. KARA-MURZA: However, general dissatisfaction accompanied Serdyukov's entire short career on Arbat Square, economist Sergey Aleksashenko believes:
- At first, the indignation was the very fact of the appointment of an absolutely civilian person, and even with such a past. It is no secret that the nickname "furniture maker" was assigned to the former Minister of Defense rather quickly. And after that, the outrage was how tough and uncompromisingly he went to implement the plan for the restructuring of all the armed forces. It seems to me that it would be funny if people who were laid off would applaud this reform and say: “How well he does everything by firing me from my job.” Of course, I think that generally speaking, the fear of such resistance was the main factor that prevented the reform of the army from being done before. Therefore, in general, it was not surprising that Serdyukov's reforms were resisted or indignant. And it seems to me that his resignation did not add any special arguments in the mouths of critics. In general, it didn’t add much heat either.

V. KARA-MURZA: Hypocritical enthusiasm about reforms in the army was by no means universal, journalist Maxim Shevchenko assures:
- Probably, among officials it is so. But officials are such a layer of people who, in fact, are not supposed to express their opinion. And many journalists simply quarreled among themselves because of their attitude towards Serdyukov and his reforms.

V.KARA-MURZA: Those dissatisfied with the reforms in the military department suddenly gained a full right to vote, writer Leonid Mlechin notes:
- There were plenty of people who were indignant at Serdyukov's reform. A huge number, first of all, retired military men, the military-industrial complex hated him and General Makarov - the chief of the General Staff - for what they did. It's just that now everyone has a chance to speak. I am extremely sorry about this, because, leaving aside all investigative actions, all suspicions of corruption (the case will go to court, we will all see), the reforms undertaken by Serdyukov and Makarov (and to a large extent implemented) are a great achievement for the Russian army.

V.KARA-MURZA: Today the guest of our studio is documentary filmmaker Vladimir Sinelnikov, laureate of the Moscow Helsinki Group award for this year. Good evening, Vladimir Lvovich.

V. SINELNIKOV: Hello.

V.KARA-MURZA: In your opinion, why are such Shakespearean passions raging in our country around the defense department and its astronomical budget?

V. SINELNIKOV: If you had asked me this question not today, not yesterday, not even a year ago, when the clouds had not yet gathered over Molochny Lane, where the ex-Minister of Defense and his closest friends and colleagues live in large, comfortable apartments, I I could have answered back then. I was absolutely ready to answer this a year ago, because I read a new book by Viktor Suvorov, called "Kuzkin's Mother", and she inserted a thermometer into today, or rather, into the budget of the Ministry of Defense. That's when the Caribbean Crisis broke out, that's when ... I'm not an expert in the field of military budgets, but that's when, to a large extent, the Soviet Union collapsed because of this budget. I advise those people who agree or disagree with Suvorov's point of view to read this book. It seems to me that no matter how one regards what he proves, 24 trillion today's military budget is simply in front of your eyes. And only then, only now do apartments on Molochny Lane pop up, two lovely girls whom I saw in the photograph (even naked) in Kommersant, cheerful, beautiful from the Ministry of Defense. And you begin to understand that you should think about it all. I think there are much bigger parts of the budget (and bigger ones) than these girls. But let's not judge people. Time will give them an assessment and history. But we remember an influential member of the government (recent) who, because of this military budget figure, resigned. Therefore, it seems to me that everything is much more complicated than the sale of these mansions, some buildings, and so on. This is where today's worries come from. And it seems to me that the excitement and courage that Khrushchev possessed when he did all this - we should study these reasons and think about where to stop and what to think about when we are rearming our today's army like this.

V.KARA-MURZA: Thank you. Let me remind you that today the guest of our studio is documentary filmmaker Vladimir Sinelnikov. The program "Frontiers of the Week" is on the air. In the studio Vladimir Kara-Murza. Let's continue our episode in a few minutes.

V.KARA-MURZA: The Edge of the Week program is on the air. In the studio Vladimir Kara-Murza. We continue our release. Last week, the renewed composition of the presidential Council for Human Rights began its work.

V.KARA-MURZA: The day before, the president signed a decree on expanding the Council to 62 people, by including 39 new members. Konstantin Remchukov considered the unnecessarily overgrown Council unworkable:
- In the party representation of the VKKB times, the CPSU knew: if you want to reduce the influence of some body, inflate it. Thus, after Stalin's death, the number of members of the Central Committee was increased (the number of members of the Presidium of the Central Committee, which was then called the Politburo). Because when there are 6 or 11 people in the Politburo, this affects the forces, everyone hears them. If you do 62 people, say three minutes each - it's 180 minutes. Can you imagine such a meeting? Three minutes is nothing at all. Therefore, 62 people is a non-working number of people who, if this is the case, will not be able to do anything. Yes, in fact, even now, it seems to me, they have not done much.

V.KARA-MURZA: The opponent of the politicization of the work of the Council is its new activist Maxim Shevchenko:
- The Council is the Council. He is not under Fedotov (with all my great respect for Mikhail Alexandrovich), but under the President of the Russian Federation. And the chairman of the council plays a coordinating and moderating role. Each of us: Leonid Parfenov, and Irina Khakamada, and Alexei Pushkov - we are people of different views. And each of us has his own theme, his own vision. It is in this complexity, it seems to me, that civil society is being created.

V.KARA-MURZA: Economist Sergey Aleksashenko considers the personal composition of the Council a secondary factor:
- The efficiency of the Human Rights Council does not depend on its composition, but on the will and consciousness of one person, who is the person under whom this Council was created. In short, from President Putin. If President Putin wants this Council to be effective, and if he understands why he needs this Council, in what direction he should give him advice, and how to respond to them, then this Council will be effective. If President Putin created the Council or updated its composition just for show (you close the Council, there will be even more noise, let it exist better), then the effectiveness of this Council will be low, regardless of who will be included in it.

V.KARA-MURZA: The writer Leonid Mlechin does not find it fundamental to expand the Presidential Council numerically:
- I don't think that the efficiency of the Human Rights Council depends on its size. I think it depends on the extent to which the country's leadership intends to listen to the members of this Council, to its ideas, proposals, to its remarks, criticism (sometimes very harsh). There will be such a desire, it will be workable. There will be no desire, it will not be workable, whatever its composition.

V.KARA-MURZA: Let me remind you that today the guest of our studio is documentary filmmaker Vladimir Sinelnikov. Vladimir Lvovich, you were acquainted with Andrei Dmitrievich Sakharov... In your opinion, why was the effectiveness of the work of human rights activists of that generation much higher than that of today?

V. SINELNIKOV: I really made a film about Sakharov, and when he died, we just finished filming, and life was already finishing the script. And 700 thousand people followed his coffin. We saw it all, we captured it. And after 10 years, I sent a film crew to his house, and there were 12 people. And I realized that society forgets those who have done so much for them, for us. And not only Sakharov is forgotten. We realized that both Bonner and the conscience of the human rights movement Yesenin-Volpin (son of the poet Yesenin), Sharansky and many others have been forgotten. And whose fault is this? Is this also the fault of human rights activists? Certainly. But society today is such that it ... Inflation of respect for interest not only in these people, but also in oneself. Therefore, this is happening. Look at the Presidential Council on Human Rights. There were the best people there. And they stayed. But today this number of people is three times higher. There, instead of 15, or something, a person, there are more than 60 of them. And they are polar opposites in their beliefs. I listened to the president when he, having already gathered them all, said: “I am ready to listen to your opinion, but only in one case: if it (this opinion) will be the opinion of all to one, one.” Well, I imagined: can Masyuk and Shevchenko have a common opinion? And there you can pick up not one, not two or three such pairs. Therefore, it means that there must be some hope for a desperate person who is fighting for his own rights or for the human rights of another, that the authorities will hear and react. Well, that's a very short time to wait to understand how everything will happen there.

V.KARA-MURZA: Thank you. Let me remind you that today the guest of our studio is documentary filmmaker Vladimir Sinelnikov. A new law on high treason risks increasing the population of Russian prisons. President Vladimir Putin signed the treason law, criticized by human rights activists, into force on Monday, the same day he assured members of the Presidential Human Rights Council that he was ready to revisit the bill and take a closer look. “The amendments to the Criminal and Criminal Procedure Codes expand the concepts of treason, espionage and disclosure of state secrets to such an extent that they create rich ground for abuses by the authorities in the fight against objectionable ones,” critics fear. Economist Sergei Aleksashenko does not expect another wave of spy mania:
- I do not think that the entry into force of the law on treason threatens us with such a wave. It seems to me that the law on treason (like many other laws of recent times) is written in such a way that they make it possible to at least ruin life ... I will not say put in jail, but bring to justice or drag a fairly large number of people through interrogations. Especially within the Garden Ring in Moscow. And it seems to me that this is the main task of this law, so that no one feels safe.

V.KARA-MURZA: According to the adopted amendments, not only those who work for foreign intelligence services can now be accused of treason. A citizen collaborating with any international organizations falls into the number of traitors. Consultations, as well as financial and logistical assistance to such structures, become jurisdictional. Journalist Maxim Shevchenko considers the interpretation of the concept of high treason to be too broad:
- When oppositional opinions, statements of journalists that differ from the opinion of the head of the Second Directorate, you understand, on the protection of the constitutional order of the Federal Security Service of Russia, can fall under treason (I'm not saying: they begin to fall), then, of course, this is a very serious issue. Therefore, I would personally ask the deputies of the State Duma to finalize this law from the point of view of concretization, down to the smallest nuances of the concept of "treason."

V.KARA-MURZA: The presidential elections in the United States brought serious cause for concern to the Kremlin. On Tuesday, President Putin, in a telephone conversation with his American counterpart Barack Obama, confirmed his invitation to pay a visit to Russia. Putin also once again congratulated Obama on his election victory and wished him success in forming a new team. Obama, in turn, confirmed his readiness to make a trip to Russia after its dates are finally agreed through diplomatic channels. The first fruits of the Kremlin's political foresight are noted by Konstantin Remchukov:
- Obama gave an unequivocal signal that the United States is not indifferent to whose hands it will fall into in Syria, including American aid. Including the military. This is the first time he said. He didn't say a single word before the election. Everyone said: "Assad away." Suddenly, as soon as he was re-elected, he says: “Do you want (he calls them jihadists) jihadists with our weapons to end up in Syria? Well, let's figure it out." And quickly the Americans, together with the British, began to create an opposition body with understandable, intelligible people who have influence on the field commanders. This is the first distinctive feature literally in the first days after the election.

V.KARA-MURZA: Writer Leonid Mlechin has no doubts about who would be a more convenient candidate for the image of the enemy:
- It would be more convenient to have a Republican administration, because Romney is more blunt in his expressions. And when “hawks” appear in America, they say something, then here we are willing to pick it up and say: “See what “hawks” and scoundrels are in America! Of course, we must answer them.” And the very mild rhetoric of the Obama administration deprives our propagandists of that pleasure. If we talk about more serious, essential things, then we must formulate it this way: both the Democratic administration of the United States and the Republican one, if they replaced Obama, are rather indifferent to Russia. One phrase can be said like this: they gave up on Russia. This is the most accurate attitude of American politicians towards our country. As for the Americans themselves, they practically do not remember Russia at all.

V.KARA-MURZA: The Kremlin has received a desired partner for the next 4 years, economist Sergei Aleksashenko is convinced:
- There is an absolutely clear understanding that President Obama is a pragmatist in relations with Russia, that he primarily cares about such point moments where America can act in partnership with Russia. He understands very well what Russia can contribute to American foreign policy. He understands very well what Russia is asking for in return. And it seems to me that a deal, a partnership in hot spots on non-interference in internal affairs suits both sides.

V.KARA-MURZA: Journalist Maxim Shevchenko considers the results of the US elections a success for the Russian opposition and its Coordinating Council:
- Of course, for the Coordinating Council, Obama's victory should be an absolute holiday, because their potential partner won. I think that Romney would not have worked with these people to the same extent as the Obama cabinet.

V.KARA-MURZA: The Edge of the Week program is on the air. In the studio Vladimir Kara-Murza. Let's continue our episode in a few minutes.

V.KARA-MURZA: The Edge of the Week program is on the air. In the studio Vladimir Kara-Murza. We continue our release. Today's page of our historical calendar is dedicated to the decline of the era of stagnation, strongly associated with the figure of Leonid Brezhnev. Mid-November 1982 was overshadowed by the announcement of all-Union mourning on the occasion of the death of Brezhnev, General Secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU. Even in the afternoon of November 7, during the parade and demonstration, Brezhnev stood for several hours, despite the fact that the weather was bad, on the podium of the mausoleum. This habit he steadily followed throughout the 18 years of his reign. Foreign newspapers wrote that he looked even better than usual. The nature of the Secretary General led the country to stagnation, economist Sergei Aleksashenko is sure:
- Leonid Ilyich chose the scenario of political life for himself: don't touch anything, don't change anything. That is, such a drying up of both political and economic life. And insofar as in the Soviet Union there was no other mechanism, except for the death of the Secretary General, a change of power, then, having come to power at a fairly young age (by those concepts), at 58 years old ... According to our concepts, this is ridiculous. Imagine, Vladimir Putin has already gone to the 4th term, and he is only 60. And Brezhnev came to power at the age of 58. And, of course, he gradually lost both physical and intellectual abilities. And, of course, he could not react to the changing situation.

V.KARA-MURZA: The end came, however, after just three days. The next day, the Central Committee of the CPSU and the Soviet government officially notified the world of Brezhnev's death. Foreign journalists who worked in Moscow noted the indifference with which ordinary citizens reacted to Brezhnev's death. This event was expected for a long time, and there was nothing that would resemble "nationwide sorrow". Writer Leonid Mlechin's own view of the problem:
- I disagree with many historians who believe that the Brezhnev stagnation, on the contrary, is not a bad thing, which, in the end, led the country to perestroika. It seems to me that during the Brezhnev years, not only was the final blow dealt to the Soviet Union, to our state, but people were also wildly corrupted. The amount of hypocrisy that existed then finally finished off and destroyed the moral foundations in society. And we continue to reap those benefits. And it happened for a simple reason: it was a phase of the regime. It entered this phase, quite natural, and, unfortunately, the Soviet Union had no other option for development.

V. KARA-MURZA: The appeal of the Central Committee of the CPSU and the Council of Ministers of the USSR to the Soviet people said that "" Brezhnev's life and work will always inspire with an example of faithful service to the Communist Party and the Soviet people "". Generic signs of stagnation are obvious to Konstantin Remchukov:
- The irremovability of leadership, the aging of people who, with age and disease, are less inclined to energetic actions. Older people get used to the already developed solutions to such an extent that they do not perceive innovation as a way out of the existing situation, but try to solve the problem in some old way. And life goes on so fast that new solutions based on new knowledge are still required. And since management is aging, there is no new knowledge, it is not able to make new decisions. And those who make new decisions are clearly younger and from a different generation. And how can you admit someone from another generation? Therefore, it seems to me that all these features led to the fact that many problems were not solved, but postponed, chatted in the hope that somehow they would resolve themselves. That is, stagnation (in other words, one can probably say so) is the political practice of delayed decisions.

V.KARA-MURZA: At the extraordinary plenum of the Central Committee, which met in the Kremlin on November 12, one could hear that Brezhnev ""will forever remain in the memory of grateful mankind as a consistent, passionate and tireless fighter for peace"". The same could be heard from the podium of the mausoleum on the day of the funeral. The collapse of communist illusions was inevitable, the writer Viktor Shenderovich is sure:
- Already before Brezhnev, communism existed only in jokes. People discussed the topic of communism only as anecdotal. Already, in fact, by the beginning of the 70s, the state was doomed. Then there was a process of slow dying, in fact, from bedsores. The Soviet Union died from pressure sores: there simply wasn’t anything at all. someone else, with little details would be the same.

V. KARA-MURZA: After a short time, Brezhnev's name began to appear less and less in print. His portraits from the walls of Moscow houses and offices. Very formally, events were held to perpetuate the memory of the leader. The shift of the scale of values ​​in the wrong direction is considered by the journalist Maxim Shevchenko as the reason for the incident:
- I believe that the stagnation began with Brezhnev's speech, when he announced communism in the 80s and made sausage a symbol of communism. For the sake of sausage, the Soviet people, who shed seas of their own and other people's blood, were completely unprepared to live and work. If sausage, then this means that philistinism is put at the head of everything. This was the death of socialism, this was the cause of stagnation, and not at all that Brezhnev was many years old. Reagan was no less years old, but there was no stagnation in America. The system began to slip. The socialist system is very much dependent on the myth that propels it forward. When the myth became "one and a half in Khrushchev and sausage", then he destroyed the Soviet Union. He became the cause of the stagnation.

V.KARA-MURZA: Brezhnev left his successors a heavy legacy of intractable problems. The last five years of his reign were years of ever-deepening political and economic crisis. None of the plans for national economic development was carried out. The national product increased by no more than 2% per year with the deterioration of many economic indicators. Enormous difficulties arose in the energy sector, the coal and timber industries, transport, and the production of many consumer goods. The inevitability of stagnation after the fall of Stalinism is recognized by the historian Nikolai Svanidze:
- When the regime stopped being so openly cannibalistic and became more vegetarian, it turned out that the economy could not work. She could only work in slave labor. And as soon as this became clear, naturally, stagnation began, and the empire began to bend. And Brezhnev's personal physical condition was a subjective factor that intensified this stagnation.

V.KARA-MURZA: There was a crop failure for four consecutive years, and not only the weather was to blame. Grain production was especially reduced. Accordingly, purchases of grain and other products from abroad increased. Grocery store shelves were empty, forcing limited food distribution in some areas. All this caused discontent among the widest sections of the population. The international position of the USSR became extremely complicated. Relations with the United States began to resemble the worst periods of the Cold War. The countries of the West and the East were facing a new round of a senseless and costly arms race. In the east, the problem of Afghanistan arose, and in the west, the problem of Poland. The political capital accumulated by the USSR during the years of detente and the relatively rapid economic development of the 1960s was later almost completely squandered. The era of stagnation was distinguished by a decrease in the ideological load, according to historian Nikolai Uskov:
- Brezhnev, of course, expressed, it seems to me, the mood of millions of people who are simply tired of thinking that they are going somewhere. To communism, to something else. This is the era when they began to joke about communism. From a goal, from some gigantic project, it turned into an empty word that is simply written on a festive poster.

V. KARA-MURZA: Analyzing the Brezhnev era, many foreign observers said that it was during these years that the Soviet Union reached an unprecedented military power. Brezhnev's critics include economists who argued that the collapse of the Soviet system began precisely with his rule. Brezhnev was opposed to radical reforms in the economy. It was by 1968 that Kosygin's economic reform, the essence of which was the introduction of market mechanisms, stalled, and soon completely disappeared. According to economic statistics, the eighth five-year plan, which ended in 1970, was the last to show the country's economic growth. Further, only high oil prices saved the USSR from economic shocks. Journalist Pavel Gusev dates the onset of stagnation to the beginning of the 70s:
- Stagnation began under Brezhnev. One of the problems that brought our society to this stagnation was the huge amount of oil money that existed in the country at that time. We then sat on an oil needle and still cannot get off it.

V. KARA-MURZA: The depth of the difficulties experienced was also determined by a number of subjective reasons, in particular, the progressive decrepitude of Brezhnev and his closest associates. The leading group of Soviet leaders, as it took shape in 1978-1982, proved unable to overcome the unfavorable influence of objective tendencies. The gradual degradation of the Brezhnev generation of politicians was considered inevitable by the writer Mikhail Veller:
- Thus, they entered the senile age and fell into senile insanity. And there was no time for any innovations. And when Kosygin tried to come up with innovations, he was told that "but this is not necessary." They no longer had the strength (mental and physical) for any kind of change. They only wanted everything to remain as it is - quiet and calm.

V. KARA-MURZA: A lot of influential, deeply decomposed, corrupt people from the Kremlin environment were interested in Brezhnev appearing in public from time to time as a formal head of state. They literally led him under the arms and reached the worst: old age, infirmity and illness of the Soviet leader became the subject not so much of the sympathy and pity of his fellow citizens, but of irritation and ridicule, which were expressed more and more openly. Recognizable signs of stagnation are observed by dissident Valeria Novodvorskaya:
- Now exactly the same situation. Putin decided that it was possible to arrange an autocracy in the country, to curtail all democratic mechanisms, and at the same time there would be some kind of food. And the economy will develop, and we will conquer the whole world, and recreate the empire. Nothing succeeded.

V. KARA-MURZA: In recent years, Brezhnev was slowly dying before the eyes of the whole world. For 6 years he had several heart attacks and strokes, and resuscitators several times brought him out of a state of clinical death. The painful state of Brezhnev began to be reflected in the government of the country. He was forced more and more often to interrupt the performance of his duties or to shift it to his assistants, whose staff gradually increased. Brezhnev's working day was reduced to a few hours. He began to go on vacation not only in the summer, but also in the spring. Gradually, it became more and more difficult for him to fulfill even simple protocol duties, and he ceased to understand what was happening around him. The set of conditions that give rise to stagnation is unique in its own way, writer Dmitry Bykov is convinced:
- Stagnation, like a swamp, occurs where water does not flow, does not move, where there is no vertical mobility, where the dumbest fall into power, where development is a source of danger. But, unfortunately, this wonderful period is unique.

V.KARA-MURZA: Let me remind you that today the guest of our studio is documentary filmmaker Vladimir Sinelnikov. Vladimir Lvovich, 30 years ago in these November days there was mourning in the country. In your opinion, have the reasons for the onset of political stagnation been eradicated, its recurrence already on a new round?

V. SINELNIKOV: I said that I was ready to answer the question about the Minister of Defense a year ago. And in answer to your question, I remembered the events that followed right after the death and even during the funeral of Leonid Ilyich. The fact is that when I was making a film about Chernobyl, I ran into Armand Hammer, and he gave me an album called Hammer's World. It's basically a photo album. And then I carefully watched this album and was shocked. He saw all our leaders, starting with Lenin, and communicated with them. But when Brezhnev died, naturally, the floor was not given to him on Red Square, at the mausoleum where he stood. And when everyone left, and the grave had already taken place, he took out his mourning speech from his pocket and, standing at the grave (everyone had already moved away), read it himself, and the photographer took it. And I turn the next page: almost the same mise-en-scene, only he is already burying Andropov. And on the next page, he stands in the same way and buries Chernenko. And suddenly it became such vaudeville in very specific three photographs.

V. KARA-MURZA: How, in your opinion, is the duration of a leader's tenure in power related to the pace of the country's development?

V. SINELNIKOV: I am now finishing (very soon) a film about Shimon Peres. This is one of the last sages of mankind. He will be 90 at the beginning of next year. The Israelis joke about him that he would always be second forever, and he became president at 83 years old. Now he is 90. Insofar as I am closely engaged in his biography now and have been meeting with him lately ... I saw him twice when he was in the presence of our president. The first time was in the city of Netanya, where a monument was erected to Soviet soldiers who saved the world and the Jewish people from fascism, and the second time now, when, at the invitation of Putin, he came to open the Jewish Museum of Tolerance. And I listened to him both there and there. There is no sense of age. Maybe we'll even call the picture "Shimon Peres - a man from the future" because he always disagrees with anyone. And the number of opponents of this person, whom the whole world already knows, on the most pressing issues is much greater than the number of allies. And he is 90. So, of course, he did not stay too long, because he has not been president for 7 years. But this is very important when, like Churchill, you sit down on the bench of ordinary conservatives. Therefore, it is more interesting for me to go from the particular to the general than from the general to the particular. Then everything is more visible. And the personality is more visible. I think so.

V.KARA-MURZA: Thank you very much for participating in our program today. Let me remind you that the guest of our studio was Vladimir Sinelnikov, documentary film maker, laureate of the Moscow Helsinki Group award for this year.

V.KARA-MURZA: The inner circle of the head of state clearly did not agree on a convincing version of his state of health. On the eve of a visit to Finland, Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev said that President Vladimir Putin has no serious health problems. The prime minister confirmed that the Russian president has to do a lot of sports to keep fit, but he has no serious injuries. In early November, the press reported that Putin was suffering from serious back problems, and that the president's health had worsened after flying with Siberian Cranes, and in connection with this he was forced to cancel a number of foreign trips. Presidential press secretary Dmitry Peskov immediately denied this information, noting that Putin does have an old injury, but it does not interfere with his professional activities. The traditions of the Kremlin courtiers of the past must be eradicated, Konstantin Remchukov is sure:
- Of course, it is not customary for us to notify on an initiative basis about the state of the president's health. But when these rumors appeared that he was very ill, Peskov explained really plausibly: an old back injury, aggravated by an unsuccessful landing on a hang glider. But once again I say: our tradition - to hide - of course, puts them in an awkward position, because there is nothing more normal than to report after those Siberian Cranes ... A lot of attention was paid to the Siberian Cranes. Well, they would show one more shot. People would have appreciated even more, maybe that a dude with a bad back went to the APEC summit. In our country, people appreciate the manifestation of this, when someone does something through pain. And then when they hide, hide, hide - it all looks like weakness.

V.KARA-MURZA: Earlier, Reuters reported that the Russian president is suffering from back pain and will eventually be forced to postpone international travel. The agency did not even rule out that Putin might need an operation. Then Peskov was again forced to issue a refutation, noting that the president was feeling well and was not going to take a break from work. Kremlin political technologists, apparently, have not worked out the topic of presidential health, economist Sergei Aleksashenko believes:
- The problem with the health of President Putin took by surprise the presidential PR people, the presidential administration. They did not understand at all how to react to this. After all, before that they were riding on some kind of rolled rails, when they understood very well how and what to react to, how and what to say about the president or prime minister Putin, how to show him (in what forms, angles, in what environment ). And here, the entire pre-existing structure collapsed, and it is clear that the change in the situation did not go in favor of Putin's image. What to do? You know, no one prepared for the bad. Nobody counted a bad scenario. It is necessary to tell the Kremlin political technologists as advice: guys, get ready for more difficult problems. It is inevitable that over time the number of problems will only increase.

V.KARA-MURZA: Officials are guided by misunderstood decency, according to the writer Leonid Mlechin:
- In general, this is not accepted in our country and it is considered impossible - to tell something about the personal life of the head of state, about his family, health, and so on. It is believed that this is wrong. I think this is incorrect. Of course, everyone has the right to their privacy, but this applies to private citizens. And if a person goes into public politics, becomes a deputy, mayor, governor, minister, president, he willy-nilly agrees that the society will know that society is not interested in relation to ordinary citizens. Including his family life, his state of health. Because, frankly, the state depends on the state of his health (mental, physical), on his mood, therefore, in general, there is nothing wrong with this. We have no traditions and habits, that's all.

V.KARA-MURZA: This is all about the main news of the outgoing seven days. You watched and listened to the program "Frontiers of the Week". Vladimir Kara-Murza worked in the studio. We say goodbye, see you next week. All the best.