“I want to believe that after a conference in Munich, an official delegation from Russia will be invited there”

Valentina Vasileva, correspondent: We are recording this interview on the sidelines of the 59th conference in Munich. This is the second Munich conference without Putin and Lavrov. But the first, to which representatives of the Russian opposition were invited as a Russian delegation. What does that say in your opinion? Does the West already see you as a potential political force with which it is possible to negotiate something in the future, or are they still more like experts and consultants on Russia?
Mikhail Khodorkovsky, co-founder of the Russian Anti-War Committee: I think from the point of view of experts and consultants, we talk when we meet experts and consultants. Here is a slightly different format. It is difficult for me to say in what form the organizers envisage the Russian opposition today, in what configuration. But what is important is that the West and Germany, which in the past was, in a sense, Putin’s stronghold, have ceased to be afraid to talk to the Russian opposition, which means that they generally understood that the era of Putin’s regime is coming to an end.
VV: You said “before being afraid”, can you say such a word “was afraid”?
M.Kh: In my opinion, yes, they were afraid. They were afraid of ruining relations with Putin. They were afraid of ruining those very lucrative trade contracts and supplies that Putin procured by buying out a large part of the local elites. And that, in general, was his long-term goal. His other long-term goal was to organize conflicts based on the support of various types of radical movements in Europe. And so, yes, they were afraid. You can tell.
VV: But now, if you look at how the West views future relations with Russia, you can see three options. Some say that Russia must be isolated, others that the disintegration of Russia is possible, still others that Russia must become democratic. Which of these options do you think is most popular in the West?
M.Kh: I’m trying to talk about a slightly different setup here, because I think the setup you just described sounds a bit odd. It is strange to try to isolate oneself from Russia, it is strange to pretend that such a country does not exist. In fact, the choice is slightly different. The choice is that when Putin’s regime falls, it will happen sooner or later anyway, the personalist regime doesn’t last long, it usually doesn’t outlive its founding father – so when Putin’s regime falls, the question is : what is needed support? Support regions that want to separate from Russia? That is to say, we lift the sanctions against those who secede from Russia. Should we support the new good Tsar, for example, say: “Mr. Mishustin” – today, if something happens to Putin, Mishustin comes in his place – say “Mr. Mishustin, we want to resume negotiations on the reduction of strategic nuclear weapons and if you make concessions within the framework of these negotiations, then we will quietly lift the sanctions ”… Or, finally, tell yourself that Russia must pass between the Scylla of disintegration and the Charybdis of the restoration of an autocratic regime, and to reorganize from the regions, to become a real federation, to become a real parliamentary republic, to become a country with real influential local autonomy, that is to say a country which concentrates on improving the welfare of the citizens, and does not seek for the legitimacy of the central government because of the presence of an external enemy. I believe that the only reasonable way for Europe, which can never isolating oneself from Russia is this third way, and I will try to convince of it.
VV: But French President Emmanuel Macron, speaking at the forum, said he does not believe in positive changes from regime change in Russia. “Who to change? he says.
M.Kh: Since his planning horizon, in general, is not very long – we don’t know for how many years he plans, if he plans his stay in politics for the next two years, then he is probably right. During this time, there will be no significant changes in Russia. And, apparently, the next president of France will have to build a long-term policy. If he assumes that he will stay in political life a bit longer, then I think he will have to think about his involvement, however small, in building the future relationship with Russia and the future situation within the Russia much deeper than it does today. The planning interval I would suggest looking at now is 2 to 10 years. In fact, not as long as it might seem.
VV: Just a few months ago in the British Parliament you talked about the role of Prigozhin, which is growing, and the Wagner Group. Now, on the contrary, we see that the role of Prigogine is declining. What can happen next? Previously there was a lot of talk about the fact that Prigozhin could come instead of Putin, now we see that this scenario is not so likely…
M.Kh: Listen, well, this is such an anecdotal approach to the situation, because aligning Prigozhin instead of Putin is a horror story, with little reality for its implementation, exactly the same as the horror story with Kadyrov instead of Putin. However, the Kremlin scares her from time to time. The fact that the influence of Prigozhin was growing – it was really growing, and at some point became excessive even from the point of view of the Kremlin, it seems to me. Now the General Staff is responsible for the war in Ukraine. And the General Staff is the opponent of Prigozhin. And today Prigozhin is already screaming that he does not have enough shells, he is not supplied and he has to borrow them from Kadyrov. This is such a normal political struggle in Putin’s environment. This struggle does not yet put Putin’s position under personal attack. That is, he manages to activate this wiring in a timely manner. And that tells us once again that it will be extremely difficult for a successor to maintain a position that is not based on collective management – as it was in Soviet times, when there was a Politburo – but on the personal power of a single person.
VV: If we summarize the options for the transformation of Russia, we hear different points of view. Dmitry Gudkov talks about the split in the elites. Ilya Ponomarev talks about the movement from below. FBK hopes that one day there will be free elections in which they will win. How do you see this situation?
M.Kh. : I don’t think that the set of scenarios that you just said, that this set of scenarios is contradictory. There will be a movement from below, there will be a split in the elites. And there will be fair elections at the end. It’s just that first there will be a split in the elites in the event of a military defeat, then there will be a movement from below, then there will be a transitional government. And I very much hope that this transitional government will be formed immediately on the basis of a system of checks and balances, and not by looking for a new leader and entrusting ourselves to him as a great country in the hope that later it will do well for everyone – because that, of course, will bring us back to the stage of authoritarianism. And after this transition process, during which fair elections will be prepared – it may take another few years – after that there will be elections, and they will already decide the future of Russia. I sincerely hope that this future of Russia will be based on this same balance of separation of powers. That is to say, because of federalisation, when power will flow from the regions on the basis of the parliamentary system – because it is the parliamentary system that normally allows you to seek compromises and represent the interests of different groups, both regional and ideological, to coordinate the interests of minorities, including modern society. Modern society is made up of territorial, ideological and all sorts of other minorities. And they should all coordinate their interests. It is simply impossible to do this in the head of a single person in today’s complex society. Therefore, the parliamentary model is important. I sincerely hope that we will follow this path, and that it will then ensure that we enter a new circle of authoritarianism.
VV: My last question: we meet at the Munich Conference during the war, the last Munich Conference was pre-war. During his speech at the forum, Volodymyr Zelenskyy said he hoped the next Munich conference would be post-war. He said that Ukraine can win this year. You believe in it ? And how do you see the next Munich Conference?
MH: I really want to believe it. And I really want to believe that after a conference in Munich, the Russian delegation will again be invited here at the highest level, and it will be these people that everyone here will enjoy seeing.