We have a cool occupation

We have a cool occupation

Present to you the long-awaited exclusive interview with the deputy of the State Duma Yevgeny Fyodorov, which I managed to take him on Friday. From it you will learn:

Who censors Putin's federal TV channels;
What are the names of American agents in the government of the Russian Federation;
What is the reason the adoption of the law "Dima Yakovlev";
How is it that the faction "United Russia" perceives laws at the behest of the U.S. Ambassador;
How cleared the "United Russia" of Putin's supporters;
Who povinet and what to do.

And that's not all. If you ever consider that Eugene A. I so subtly trolls or else completely addicted to any substance, then I dare you to convince — he did not like the fox and uporotyh 100 percent believes in what he says. And believe it or not — this is solved by reading the interview. I reminded all the traditional film "Aliens among us", but … read better themselves.

Politresh. The reason that I was curious to interview you — it's your pretty huge, two-hour show, which caused quite a big stir in the blogosphere …

Fedorov. All the same, I new it did not say

P. But still, bloggers have directed attention to the fact there was a lot of, in my opinion and in the opinion of many others, juggling and quite diverse expressions. I then looked even your speech at Moscow State University and several of your different public …

F. They are there generally two pieces, so that they can look a day

P. Yes, but could not see — the most recent look. And I had a few questions. I will say outright that "the financial part" aside — I'm not an expert in it. My friends who have studied your suggestions related to the central bank, they say that there is indeed a reasonable proposal, and I tend to trust them. The only thing they have there some small claims, and aspects there, but in general they support this initiative …

F. Putin read in the Letter.

P. Yes, I sent a note, it is almost your idea and supported.

F. This is the general idea, but not mine.

P. But you do it personally lobbying.

F. I am lobbying only a single idea — sovereignty. All other — a consequence.

P. Let us turn to a certain point. You stated that Putin have virtually undergoing some censorship on the federal TV channels and on the whole Russian federal TV is in the hands of the Yankees and enemies of the country.

F. Yes.

P. We virtually all federal TV channels are owned or state, or near-state companies, such as "Gazprom". And, accordingly, the leaders, in fact, appointed by Vladimir Putin, in other words, if we have a look at Dobrodeeva on Kulistikova …

F. Yeah.

P. Because it is so is that the people appointed by Vladimir Putin, the people assigned to the heads of federal channels censored the president of the country and then who does it for them? It's not entirely clear to me — then who censor Putin?

F. And let's see, there was more to the interview and all the things there are mixed among themselves, since we are talking about the system. Well, for example, where I gave the example of Comrade Kalinin.

P. Yes, I remember that.

F. Comrade Kalinin, including his family, was subjected to a certain pressure and repression. It made his personal slave, as it generally was "president of the Russian Union" on the status of …

P. Well … yes.

F. Yet, they did it. In other words, you assume that the person who is the president — against him may be his formal act — to emphasize that word — in spite of the formal subordinate, of course, to his wishes. Hardly Kalinin wished that it were against reprisals against his family. So?

P. In other words, you believe that Dobrodeev and Kulistikov are, tell them so, Putin formally submitting them and he almost appointed to these posts?

F. Well, it of course. And I will give you another example, that approach to the topic. For example, take the case of Poland and the Russian Union. Well, in Poland were also a variety of positions, shapes, it was the independent state, but no one, at this point, does not believe that the independent states pursued an independent policy, the best of the Russian policy of the Union. And not enough, look if the internal system, the entire infrastructure of the country subordinate to the Polish self-contained, separate, adjacent to the state in the face of international department of the Central Committee.

P. In other words, it appears Vladimir Putin proclaimed these people under the pressure of any external forces?

F. No, it does not come out. It does not leave, he proclaimed them under pressure, it turns out that he is the guarantor of the Constitution, proclaimed them due to the current supply devices frames. A supply system personnel Vladimir Putin is a system of checks and balances. What is "system checks and balances "? This is when the shots are not appointed in the first person, for example, but on a team, and it's just their team teetering between themselves. This is a fundamentally different model of management, since you have at the moment are asking, so I have to say that, say, the president of Germany, is the same — there has appointed the same media that were municipal and they are the same to him with delight "soaked" three or four months back and put the new president, for example. In other words, it is an ordinary European, say, the German model, the system of relations. In other words, if read in Russian, — President of the Russian Federation — is the guarantor of the Constitution, in fact, that everything they say, in other words, the "political notary."

Notary — a person who can not deny the applicant, if he filed the required set of documents. Here is the same. In other words, in the relationship, he signs the papers, but that does not mean that it is the members of his team. It's a different thing.

P. In other words, they are not all the same members of his team?

F. Non-members of his team. Not enough, if we'll see at the university, we will see … For example, the Institute of Business — the whole business zabugornoy jurisdiction. It means the whole system is self-government based on the beliefs and decisions that it will offer to Putin, will be offered on the basis of the system of international relations.

P. That's about it I have a separate question.

F. A is the total of things. The same goes for the rest: the government and its individual divisions, the political system … Well, you have at the moment are asking, and I have to tell you — that's a always and everywhere. To sum up, here's the first part of the answer, the system as a guarantor of the constitution signed the paper, prepared not by him — a standard system that exists in virtually all states.

P. Yes, it's a fact. As someone who worked in the office, I can confirm that.

F. Why do you think that works against Kulistikova something different? The same!

P. I just know that Vladimir Putin is quite independent policy. Speak out so as to such positions himself, in person, looking at the person he appoints and personal confidence in him experiencing at the destination.

F. You see, you see, looks! In other words, he is given a man, and he looks at it.

P. Well, he advised people closest to him, for example, Zubkov.

F. No, the balance of power. He is not at all … That's not counting Kholmanskikh, no 1st destination outside the system. And Kholma
nskikh — it's a different story, and, say, a single exceptional case. All frames and Kalinin and all the presidents of all the states, are served by the system. And the system is tied to the Yankees. From the perspective of strategic and global governance. Accordingly, all of the frames are pumped through their control.

P. To be honest I was working in the system, there is not beheld that control the Yankees, but it can be a global, in other words, the mental …

F. It is against the rules. In other words, Americans are focusing, as well as Russian Alliance in Poland on 3 main pillars. First — the rules, in other words, the strategy. Second — information. And propaganda, as Poland was not entitled to their own propaganda — it was inside the Russian Poland. The strategy, advocacy, and of the information that is connected with this. Here are three areas on which to focus the United States. Both universities motivate them related to these areas — and because the Ministry of Education. But the Department of Transportation and is not interested. As well as the Ministry of Education to motivate Russian Alliance in Poland, and the Ministry of Transport — not motivate.

P. That is, going to the government … you have said that the government opponents about 80 percent of them — direct American agents — 5 people. About 5 people. And could you now, just to list about whom we are talking in this case, who is them? Well, here's Ministry of Education. You mean the Minister Livanov. This one, who else?

F. So, look, we begin with an analytical question, and graduated from the public so somehow, right?

P. Well, though, curiously the same ..

F. No, curious — I understand, but I do not … Every intelligence agency — has its own hierarchy approach. That's me — the analytical approach. Political and analytical. If I — an employee of the special services, I have to listen to phones, compare the information …

P. May, saying "you think," Who is? …

F. Wait, compare information and call him names. This is how it works. Mechanism. In other words, at the level of intelligence to give you names … I'm sure our intelligence agencies know their names, just their nobody asks — they do not need anybody, they are about it, how many times, and voices from the time of the Soviet KGB. When the KGB was, "That's it — the agents of Americans" and Gorbachev forbade them this information and distribute it to the public is, in other words, just as the system is up and running. We currently can only read about those from the standpoint of intelligence, I'm not an intelligence agency, I have no wiretapping. Means I can only read on the analytical component. We litsezreem that publicly declared his own support for the Yankees Livanov, Golodets, well, there are some ministers who are designated in the laws of the United States as their foothold in Russia. I'm not going to name names because I'm not special service, but you always look for them. In other words, these people just are, prescribers themselves Americans, including — no one really does not even hide. In fact, if we'll see how the analytical apparatus of the Ministry of at least some, well, in this case — the Ministry of Education. That's what interest the Russian Alliance in Poland? The Ministry of Education, everything associated with the information, all linked to the economy .. Same thing here — the Central Bank under the full control of the United States, the Ministry of Education — under the full control of the Yankees, as they need it. In other words, for their own purposes, control of the situation in Russia-United States, as an invader-loser as a winner-loser — they need these tools because they are paying attention to them. Can and generally all the ministries to take, but that is a very big state, and harder just at the technical level.

P. I, then, to the question for you. How do you feel about the privatization program there, which at the moment the government has initiated?

F. I consider the question in a different plane. All that is being privatized in Russia — everything automatically goes to a foreign yurispundentsiyu. In other words, it is the form of the payment of tribute.

P. In other words bad?

F. No, I can not say. This is the form of the payment of tribute. But the government and the general system of municipal government — they too are subject to the U.S., as we have at the moment is discussed. In other words, from the standpoint of this approach — and so and so is bad. It is clear, right? Excellent will be when our homeland will nationalization, in the sense the word, it exists in the Russian language, and not because we did it "zapoganili." The nationalization — it is not "nationalization" …

P. I understand it — translated into Russian yurispundentsiyu.

F. Yes, what Putin had read in his own message.

P. I, in this case it is quite support, in other words, some antiofshornaya campaign in Russia, of course, necessary.

F. Do not just antiofshornaya, and all of the elite abroad, in other words, from the standpoint of policy. If we are talking about privatization, I — one hundred percent supporter of private property. Reinforced concrete. So how effective it is, I'm an economist, I understand it. But privatization in Russia — this is not my question. Privatization in Russia has no influence, because if we translate yurispundentsiyu national economy, even if we passed this enterprise foreigners, and we are all strangers in other words, personal business at the moment overseas, they still come back in Russia. During devices planted in a message to Putin. Because, for me, this question — and then, and then — evil. Because I'm at it, usually, do not answer.

P. Surely, you figured out my hint — I mean, what kind of program from privatization, we meet Arkady Dvorkovich, brother of your colleague in the latest batch …

F. Not for the latest games, and in the national liberation movement …

P. Fine, let's call it that.

F. We have associates in the middle and Putin Vladimir Vladimirovich …

P. Fine, and that, in fact, I was intrigued by how you feel about it and classifies you, for example, Arkady Dvorkovich to those "enemy forces" in the government of the country that lead us …

F. I to the enemy forces do not rank because I am a lawyer, I'm talking about real people. Real people are such that even if they do, say, the State Duma, for the Yankees, passing legislation at the request of the United States (it is thoroughly described in the WikiLeaks as is done), it does not mean that .. Speak out because — in the occupied areas in a different way and does not happen. This does not mean that we need to take, and all the people who collaborated with the occupiers, to take away out of the country — then we lose half of the country. This is incorrect. Because we are only talking about those people who do not just work with the Yankees, and say in public about his own position: "I do not care for Russia, I am a public agent of the United States, and for you, then I nachhala natives, and when I finish my work here, I'll leave the owner of the States, get there from their homes and the necessary support, cover and everything else, and I will, my family, my children and my grandchildren will live there "… It's a little bit different tone relations.

P. Well, as I recall, none of our ministers do not spoken, including Lebanon and Golodets. They did not say those words.

F. No, they openly articulated: "We are not satisfied with Putin's policy" …

P. They have openly criticized the law related to the ban on adoption Yankees Russian orphans, but he also criticized the law, for example, Minister Lavrov, which is hard to fault that he had previously spent some occupation policy.

F. Are you a little bit, like I say, go away from common sense
of real relationships between people. The real case are such that the occupied areas — all under occupation. In other words, this is not the case, so that, for example, in Poland, there are people who for a Russian alliance against the Russian Union, I mean Poland Russian time. Such a principle can not be! It's all for the Russian Alliance, realize it? Only in the kitchens of some of his abused or grit his teeth, but did work on his instructions. A and some did not, and what is referred to, betrayed their country with joy, here Livanov refers to the second, he throws his homeland with joy, as well as Golodets. I see by the statements Livanov and Golodets …

A P. Lavrov not?

FM Lavrov international bureaucrat and has its own rules in the systems of relations.

P. Fine.

F. In other words, well, it is clear, is it?

P. Yes, I realize where you draw the line. Let's discuss in general the law "Dima Yakovlev". You said that it is a response to the "Magnitsky Act" in the United States. I specifically picked it up text, I even just in case brought with him. That is, in principle, from which it follows that it is some kind of "mirror" response.

F. Show, where we must underline …

P. Even if we go first. We litsezreem that there is no justification in this response to the "Magnitsky Act", but we litsezreem ban on race. In principle, there are many of those same pt, that are in the "Magnitsky Act". I know that the "Magnitsky Act" is a very broad thing, it is not limited to people who were involved in the death of Magnitsky. It is clear to me.

F. It is clear to all of our leading channel: "First", "Russia", NTV. It reporters, although there are many people who know the British, simply incomprehensible. This means that they are not subject to Russian jurisdiction, from the standpoint of its own information policy. Conduct a coordinated foreign policy of the country.

P. In my opinion, there is most likely talking about the lack of professionalism faster than about foreign control.

F. Listen, why do you think that a large group of "First" or NTV, or "Russian", a thousand people, they have less expertise than you have?

P. Let us state so, I came across stories that allow me to read about it.

F. Here you are one, and they — a system in which lawyers, international affairs, the correspondents, in other words, one person can make a mistake and people make a mistake tysche difficult. And their professionalism lower than you 1st?

P. No, of course. On some channels mentioned that in the "Magnitsky Act" expanded interpretation of who can get to the Act.

F. Later, when it can not be were it not to mention when it is taken, as you know, a cat and nashkodivshego rozhoy poked, that he would at other times not pour puddle. Only then will have to mention. In other words, the open web, and to see the official text of the law of the United States, when it is described in the video for 10 minutes, you think this is a little professionalism, with correspondents there, even in the States?

P. Do you think that it was a deliberate censorship?

F. The trivial thing! Or when, NTV provides information longish roll 5 minutes, demonstrating the statement the Foreign Ministry, where everything is written correctly on the screen, and behind-the-scenes reads lies. You feel you do not look professional in that paper that show?

P. There is not such a case.

F. This happens in this case, when commanding the U.S. and its control system Russian channels. Just as in the Polish television is used to give a command when the appropriate authorities. It's all a systemic thing. Just such a system of occupation, it is not fool, and it's work. Employees in any career, destiny, earnings depend on the employer or the manipulator, which is in the United States. Because it's not a mistake. All the more we advance in six months explaining what "Magnitsky Act", where we were given the word. To pretend that we have not read, because we do not need to read. Read and deliberately lied.

P. Let us turn to the law.

F. It's clear that the "Magnitsky Act" is a direct violation of freedom Fri citizen Russian Federation, and specifically the right to private property.

P. I do not dispute this.

F. Because we are on the same day passed a law prohibiting the bureaucrats have a property abroad. Basically, it is a pure response to the item from the "Magnitsky Act", that the United States could not manipulate the Russian bureaucrats. Accordingly, when the law forbids to have taken property abroad, it lowers the degree of manipulation, it is reasonable?

P. I will.

F. I'm not on assessments of the facts I have. This is the answer?

AP Totally.

F. So here it is the answer. Why do they say that "the law of Dima Yakovlev" is the answer?

P. He was positioned as a response to the deputies of the State Duma.

F. By yourself? I've not read as such.

P. SEREGA Zhelezniak if I'm not mistaken, and those speakers "United Russia", who is the most cited.

F. Cite the one who will point the Americans. Such a rule is manipulating the information space. Pull out some context disk imaging. Someone can be so pronounced, as well conceived. But this context, gave him a full-scale format. I do not think that is the answer to the "Magnitsky Act", although he received in connection with the act. And passed the act, it is clear why we experienced such a ban on the sale of kids for quite a long time limit.

P. And what was the story with the children tie up with a response to the brutal act of the United States?

F. lucky that the window had the ability to take the law against the slave trade. Lucky that there is such a political situation that is a window of abilities over time, in connection with an attack on the Russian Federation. This is usually our Russian history. In Russia, the reaction takes place when it is attacked. Remember when Putin said in Botlih: "We're under attack!"? This allowed cancel Khasavuirt which Botlikh not touch. Here, the same story. Do not be defeated by Napoleon, if he came to Moscow.

P. In other words, practically "Magnitsky Act" was the catalyst that has permitted to adopt such a law?

VF permitted to get rid of the slave trade. Just when we have a system of colonies, the colonies are of different status. Here is the degradation of Russian colonial situation has reached the point that we come to the slave trade.

P. Fine. In connection with this question, here we are not allowed foreign adoptions, and allowed only in the U.S., why does not prohibit the adoption of the EU?

F. There could, did not have the balance of political forces. It is also a system. There is an internal system of allies. Let's say we are in favor of a total ban of the slave trade. We were treated 5 times at a meeting of the ban, but under certain situation has a particular coalition. In other words, we were attacked, there was a shock, the shock has formed a temporary coalition for sovereignty. The Coalition for the sovereignty, created a piece for the sovereignty of applets associated with more odious components of the colonial regime in Russia.

P. It turns out that you think that this story is not the answer to the "Magnitsky Act", and just got to get to the data and information of political criteria to take this decision?

F. Yes, yes, yes!

P. This, incidentally, is completely understandable argument. Most members of the Unified Russian Federation is very confused.

F. We have long punched it! Not a lot of that came only with the United States, but it is true for 70% of the trade limit.

AP Question about statistics, you call the 500 number in the thousands o
f kids who were taken to the United States?

F. Yes.

P. I specifically raised the official statistics. Since 2002, Americans have adopted the least bit 30 thousand babies, in other words from the official statistics it does not converge.

F. Let's make out the statistics. So, the official statistics, which was sent to us from the Ministry of adopted kids 60 thousand Yankees.

P. I guess that's a figure of 91.

F. I can give you the materials for this statistic. Statistics announced by the Ombudsman in the State Duma over 100 thousand children. Statistics 500 thousand, there came something that is not included here. That there were not included. In 1-x, 500 thousand from the time of the Raisa Gorbachev, here and there with 91, and the statistics we have considered a 94 and some with 99. Not a lot of 90s in general were no statistics, no one really did nothing. In-2, all adoptions were no criminal statistics. Here, for example, the Tribunal confirmed the Volgograd criminal adoption in Italy 1200 kids, this strshnaya history has shown the work of only the 1st agency.

P. Yet, we do not adopt kids rebuked Italy, it would be logical.

F. Italy, this is the case found the situation. Once exposed a lady who took out one in 1200 babies. Of course, these kids are not in what statistics do not include. It is safe to add these to the 1200 100 tyscham. But this is not the only case. Just a tribunal case, I emphasize, the case set a 1200 children. In addition, add the illegal export of kids here, for the same purposes, but did not pass through the function of court decisions, etc.. Kids exported under the guise of tourist arrivals, under the guise of sporting events, in other words, it is also semi-criminal component of the kids over the limit. On the totality of these reasons, we define the half. It is understood that only passes through the statistics 20 percent. A huge part does not catch statistics.

P. You approach is critical to the faction to which a member yourself. You talk about the fact that, in principle, a team in the State Duma, Putin was tipped, called the order of numbers more than 100.

F. This is true. Here you are working in an organization, you are a reasonable person aware of, if you have in the organization had 200 experienced workers, which dragged the company after you get the day awake and half of them fired, and instead they took people off the street. The quality of the organization you will fall down.

P. On the other hand, we are talking about the Municipal Duma, where there should be some rotation of deputies.

F. Do not just rotation, and let's see who has come to replace it. Now, if you are laid off 100 people ballast and instead took their glittering professionals who are in other companies showed that their level of performance above, in other words the brutal human resources policy, then 100 percent of your company will jump. But we litsezreem that it is not so! In the Municipal Duma took the wrong people who have had enough experience of political activity. Maybe some of them will get this experience in the Duma, but maybe not. But in-1's, if he gets this experience will be 5 years. Political experience, it is very difficult to comprehend. We are aware that a sharp decrease in the properties left the staff of the State Duma, well, at least. If that happened, it means there is a certain customer. Means the question of who is the customer of the process of reducing properties of the State Duma? Next, we begin to dismantle the Personnel who cleaned. One of the deputies of the Communist Party Bagaryakov dared to raise the subject of the laws passed by the Duma on the U.S. team, went to the podium and spoke about it in connection with the adoption of certain laws. In this case, it is not special in this case. He just completely correlated trivial facts according to certain laws, on which he worked on the committee. This is referred to as "tired." Yes? He stepped to the podium said, "Well, why do we do? Here salting U.S. orders us to pass a law that's in your hands the law, for which you vote, in the version as requested salting. It's not perfect, we are not South American Duma and the Russian, "- said the deputy from the rostrum. For this he smoothed out.

P. Well, because in order to pass the law, and in the last Duma, and in this, you need to vote the faction "United Russia". It turns out that the faction "United Russia" vote on the laws which asks salting the U.S.?

F. I understand. I'm what you have to say. Naturally the faction "United Russia" and the whole Municipal Duma vote on a law that asks salting USA. Except in the case of manual control when the cut one specifically Putin and manually pulls out the issue. But it can not be cut by every law. I remember that day we have on the agenda of day or 10's laws. In other words, this is a rare exception, this is the manual control. Manual control is different from the system. The system for the Yankees, manual control for Putin

P. Oh well, the system. Manages faction "United Russia" is now Vasiliev, if I'm not mistaken. It turns out that Vasilyev directly subordinate to the U.S. ambassador? After all, how else could it be?

F. Not so. You just do not understand the principle of the State Duma and the law. And I know him, because I'm talking about. In other words, I'm not saying this from the side. I say this knowing the details of this mechanism. After I passed 500 pieces of legislation the State Duma, personally by me.

P. You have, I think, very many callings in the Duma?

F. I first convocation, with a break for two convocation. In other words, four convocation. And the chairman of the committee and deputy chairman of the committee, and so on. Technology quite understand how it works. Developing such that these issues are not of course in the Duma are solved. But this is not a mystery to all, as spices, all understand that these issues are not resolved by the Duma. Duma — the last resort, which at the end of a period. In a sense, notaries.

AP Sources that where laws are often prepared, apparently, you are the government and the presidential administration?

F. No. Laws are prepared in special hired by the U.S. departments of professionals. And so far it's done. I mean big, harsh laws, not including fines. Harsh laws are written specifically here these offices. Provides grants the United States, in their written law, then that law emerges in the respective department of government, on the table. When I worked in the Ministry of Atomic Energy, I have experience in government, Adams took out a pack of laws under the table, put on the table and read: "Here, we wrote the law. Let's take it. " In this case, the names of the creators were not known, simply materialized on the table text. To be clear, the writing of the law is very harsh labor lawyer who just do not write. This is a special law in the field of law, they have very little in Russia. Establish who wrote not so hard, we had no big market. It happened so Makar. Next, the Ministry of the law enough, tucked in some small funds that are allocated to it Tipo development. But really it was the means of cover. Law enough, brings within the Government to continue the process as working for yourself. But the basis of this procedure was the position of the United States and is carefully written in their documents. In other words, we have mechanisms in the Duma, the mechanisms in the government and in the end, third party mechanisms at local chain of command the United States. Embassy of preparing the text of the laws through grantees, who wrote and co-ordinated with the ministries and departments, then these laws were approved in Washington, in the form in which it is needed. Then there was a process: the law on Washington to take his Russian, bottom grantees filed this law through the ministry
. All of this combined system was connected to the DG, in the form of a law. Next, the president was applied to the signature, he should sign it, because it is a procedural matter, in fact, for the president.

P. And now, you assume that the system continues to operate at about the same way?

F. So it thoroughly describes WikiLeaks. It acts 20.

P. In Wikileaks I have been closely studied all the materials of, that have been posted.

F. The law of the state payment system read it?

P. Yes. I know the history associated with this law. I know that there stood by South American payment systems means on lobbying this story.

F. This is not about lobbying. The thing is that the technology salting decided what should be the text of the law. The fact that all of this he was called lobbying, well, it does not matter, it's his internal procedure, well here and pay for everything. You can not say that the employee works for a wage, it is lobbying for these wages, it's his job, the ambassador such work. The system of grantees is their job, it's not what the laws are paying for, and they get paid for the work as a whole

P. Fine. All this system involves quite a huge funding of U.S. agents in Russia. As we know, not so long ago was banned in Russia Fund USAID. But for some channels when introduced into Russia the money for you known the financial side of this issue? Either we are practically paying for?

F. of the board. By the way our grants, 70% of our grants are used to finance anti-Russian foreign organizations.

P. Our grants, do you mean that the president highlights?

F. which is isolated Russian power. This information is not even mine, not from me it sounded. Look materials clubs 3-4 years ago, clubs of "United Russia", there it goes. That's why the "United Russia" is also smoothed out, the prior issue. We currently Bagaryakova of the Communist Party discussed, and in the "United Russia" cleared the 100 people, Putin. But in general cleared the 200, only the band of "United Russia". This purification, which for any organization is lethal. Putin cleared the people. Vasiliev is one of those who remained. There are not 15 people somewhere, Vasiliev among them.

P. Who else if not a secret? Who do you have to rank as the wing of Putin's "United Russia"? Just always exciting names. You, of course, Vasiliev, who else?

15 F. man about. I do not want to get into names. Specifics — it is a matter for the analyst to another sphere, the sphere of individual things. I am a political analyst, I was fascinating phenomenon, and some people are not, as some people call, not fundamentally a plus or a minus, but later there certain situations that will hurt business.

P. As for the not so long ago which seemed hearing. The fact that the faction "United Russia" Tipo wants to discuss the upcoming stay at a fraction of the party and you, as members Sidyakina and Kostunova. This is a lie or the truth?

F. This is another informational provocation. We all looked at the example of the case Magnitsky mechanism of American propaganda, provocation and lies. As with Putin's daughters, who are studying abroad. The whole system is built on lies, and the whole media system we have built on lies. And this is one is the same thing. Provocation lies — it's unchanging story, because I have long been accustomed to these provocations. And if you read about me personally, just the two of us in HD. By the way, too, the question of why in the 12 years of the founding block of Unity-Bear, which was made together with Putin, there are only two people.

P. You and?

F. Klintsevich. Why do others have been cleaned? Stripping last years ending in. Earlier treatment were also much less, but they were too. Of the seven founders of the organizations there were two. Because if you read about the ideology of the "United Russia", I know better. Just later added to it its official enemies, and enemies of Putin. "Homeland," "All Russia" and yet there is one organization. Unprincipled. Add three or four enemies have left a quarter of the ideology under which the party was built. And later still spent countless cleaning, including the last one, when out of 200 "Putinists" left 15. It is clear that the organization will change its own ideological views.

P. Well, because Putin does not become to be a favorite of the party.

F. Because he ceased to be a favorite of the party. So how to be a favorite of the party, so much has changed his ideology, when so many reverse domeshivaetsya the initial conceptual material. She is so changed that he was embarrassed to lead the "United Russia". He's gone to other formats to the formats of consolidation, "People's Front" and so on. This is a trivial thing, but it does not mean that I need the "United Russia" together with Putin throw, it would be incorrect. On the contrary, the "United Russia" under no circumstances should be in the enemies of the national liberation movement, it must be in their midst. To do this, there must be people who need it "anchors" under Putin's path, the path to sovereignty. I just think, as the creator of the party, under any circumstances, be combined with Putin to go somewhere. We must continue to work in the party. To do this, there is a fully harsh base on which is built the "United Russia", though after the Americans have cleaned it, interest of 95%. Base remained, it must be restored, reproduce.

P. In this regard, I have a question, just associated with the creation of the "Free Russia", it means the party?

F. understood. The main project itself, I thought of him many times read, the project of national liberation forces, ie the national liberation movement, that's what the project. In the final step, it should include all the political forces of the Russian Federation, as well as they have consolidated around the law, "Dima Yakovlev".

P. Faction Fair Our homeland is not the whole truth to vote for him, only a portion of Deputies.

F. As a fraction, it consolidated. Everywhere there are pro-American or propagandized. We say — in any of the national liberation movement of the principles of association independent of political opinion, the most important freedom of the motherland. If in the army in the Red Army during the war with Hitler, started to figure out who has what political views, the army fled to a day or 3.

P. Some coordinating council of national liberation forces.

F. course. This is the main direction. Inside this set of directions. Party building is secondary for us, the most important freedom of the motherland. And in the eyes of party building have each group of people, that's fine. But for the purposes of freedom all should merge, with all this spending their eyes. Party of Free Our homeland, of which we speak, is a project of the so-called "one goal." Purpose — sovereignty. There's even written in the statute that the party exists only to the restoration of the sovereignty of the country. Because this project and I support it. He's not just a party project. We work on the South American rules, they did the same party mechanisms, the whole system. Working on the South American rules, of course you can get the most out of these rules, but the rules themselves, we do not change. Because I support the project Free Our homeland, as a party of one goal, restore the sovereignty of the country. Inside the system of the national liberation movement, it is also a role, it is the role of the legal department associated with electoral matters. Since the technology of the coordinating council decides the national liberation movement, and other mechanisms. That's my attitude to this party. Generally speaking, there is some trick, w
hich may not all be aware of. We believe that the party Free Our homeland, which puts puzzle restoration of sovereignty and then she wound up, but the point is that all parties are liquidated. Because since the restoration of sovereignty will have to build from scratch the entire political system of the country.

P. Do you think that the party system …

F. It is all pro-American, as the system

P. Party will exist?

F. Will. But all of them will be built from scratch. You will need to completely reformat the party building. Therefore, when the Free Our homeland has it that the party only to the sovereignty of the phenomenon lies in the fact that as well as all the other parties are. Only in this logic, they have not yet entered, and free our native land already entered into it. In this regard, all parties have completed their existence since the restoration of the sovereignty of the country. We are aware that ends with a step — change all legislation from the pro-American at the national and the change in the state constitution type of control, ie, ends with a step — a change of the Constitution, after 7 years

P. Do you think that in about 7 years and it just has yet to happen?

F. over. This should all take place 7 years.

P. We have an election cycle, as you are aware, there is 2016-2018 year.

F. No. I kept going around. I understand that there are things that will require 3 years. Well, let's say, the outdoor activity will claim 3, in order to reformat the people on the national-liberation movement. In principle, our motherland is a country here in my opinion, for the freedom of their own country will rise up everything. Another thing is to get through the South American occupational information barrier-propaganda, that's the main issue. And this main question to be addressed, 3.

P. conformed. You mean, the formation of a self-information field. Yes?

F. No. Just the truth. We do not want the truth about everything, we need the truth about the status of the Russian Federation, as the occupied areas, as a colony. From time to time I blame that now you're saying that the colony, and means such as an arm should be lowered. On the contrary. If we tell the truth, we mobilize.

P. Well, mobilizing, but the fight that's who? You are aware of?

F. On the occupier.

P. I'll explain.

F. Who mobilize India in the days of the colony?

P. There were some British. Well fine, but relatively speaking, suppose we have mobilized. Whom we need to take to jail and deported from the country?

F. No, deport and jail to those who are at the final step will be a tool in the hands will play for the occupants. This, for sure, on a theoretical level may be, but I do not think it will happen.

P. Just when you are about the voice of the Yankees, I do not understand …

F. occupiers. I'm talking about the occupation, which for us Americans.

P. Well, yes. Well, almost no definite indications of who are these the most invaders. In other words, in general, you are a logical system and is quite slender, but not enough in it, completely lacking, in my opinion, the specifics.

F. The specifics completely understandable. Vertical control, in other words, the CPSU Central Committee, the Politburo and Secretary General — is the State Department, the embassy and grantees. Here is a political system that makes us part of the Politburo, the Central Committee of the Communist Party to control the state.

In your GP if, let's say, throw a bomb at the U.S. Embassy and shoot all the grantees strip U.S. funds, then the problem will be solved? I'm exaggerating of course.

F. Here we have a cool occupation. Cool occupation is different from the hot that no enemy with a gun. On the territory of Russia, as in the large area of the Russian Federation it is.

AP Military bases you have in mind.

F. All of the Baltic States, where it is officially the occupants with a gun stroll. In Georgia, and so on. In other words, on the territory of Russia is, as our home for the average person is Russian Alliance. Since this is a historic Russian Federation and Russian Federation — is one of 15 gaulyayterstv made by the occupier to the occupied area, only just. Here on our gaulyayterstve, the enemy with a gun, with the exceptions by some not. Since the exceptions provided for by Gorbachev, well, this is a purely military-specific thing. Except for a small present. Because it's cool mechanism occupation. It does not change the essence. In other words, the same tasks. That there is like Hitler there exportation kids, people, workers, capital, assets, resources, and the same thing, even on a massive scale. On children is 10 times more Americans than Hitler were taken out of Russia. In other words the same purpose, but other methods. Methods myagenkie, cool, modern methods of occupation. And this is the difference. Similarly worked Tatar-Mongol occupation of ways, but let's say from Nazi occupation, they are different. There were all the same tanks and troops of the enemy. It's not true, but it does not change the essence, the mechanism. There is a separate ministry and agency. The same Central Bank. However, the Ministry of Education, which produces office functions in the occupied areas. Let's say a 17-year occupation of the Brest peace that holds a special occupation Commission, made in Germany. Then even the Kaiser of Germany. In other words, all the technology works the same way. Exclusively in these institutions are not foreigners currently serve, even though 90 years were foreigners. In other words, in 90 years, it was a direct mechanism of these firms, direct control. At the moment there are Russian citizens, who the Americans have entrusted to collect tribute in the occupied area, Russian Federation. So they should be subjected to conversion, as this cool occupation, for us not that I was someone to plant, so the question is not, for us, the question is to change the nature of the work of these bodies. In other words, we believe that the central bank needs to work on Russia, not America.

P. For this it is necessary to take another law on the Central Bank.

F. To do this, take a different constitution. Since the central bank acts on the basis of the Constitution, too. In other words, the law is not enough. The law does not give to accept. Putin tried. I remember 10 years ago, he was not given.

P. Oh, so you think if at the moment he read it in his address, he again will take? And who will not give him?

F. As in past times — America. Who are the agents of the policy of containment configurations toward sovereignty, let's just write them on paper: 1 — the elite of the country, the whole business, large as well. You have to swear allegiance to a foreign country, then you are a businessman.

P. In other words, you say, that Russian companies, personal, withdraw their parent companies to offshore because they are forced to do so.

F. Because those are the rules. In principle, the fact that 100% …

P. So in fact they themselves go there. They go there in order to pay less taxes.

F. Let's both. Because of the Russian system of government and laws go. Even in the days of the Nazi occupation of people do not go to Germany because there hands grabbed him and led him away. In any case, he rearranged his feet voluntarily. This condition. Made them Americans. Subparagraph first. They make the rules, the occupation. They made them such that when these rules in Russia can not be a great business. We therefore speak to change the laws so as Putin in his address read, that on the one hand there was the possibility of big business on the myriad characteristics, and the second sub — this is what we pull it back. Incidentally, I adherent order to return the business to Russia. There are people who offer to cut and make a new one. I believe this is incorr
ect. I believe it is necessary to return our business, and this, of course, first, you need to do for him here conditions. But Americans are not allowed to do it for the conditions here. This is a political struggle.

P. Amerikosy respective block the bill?

F. course. And introduce others which will be oriented in the opposite direction. Relatively speaking, that's juvenile justice did not work at their base to carry out the law. They pitched it to nine and spend. They are kept under control system. In other words, for they do not. If they behold the that abuts a large law does not pass, they will spend it in nine others. And nobody will track, as the system is on their side. A manual override allows you to track down one, two, three laws, not more.

P. So why is the manual control mechanism is not necessary to carry out these laws, if the mechanism of manual controls, described by you, it works.

F. Works, but he, too, is not omnipotent. There are things completely outrageous — the slave trade, as well, of course is that the country was brought to the extreme. In other words, it was driven in rabotorgovchesky century, the invaders were driven to such an extent instilled orders here. And if we're talking about more serious things, there is one law will not work. Need totality of rules. Well, let's Law "Dima Yakovlev"? Basically, who makes it? The courts. Rather narrowly in terms of export ban children. We have quite a narrow system of judicial power. And if we talk about economic laws, then cut one of their millions of people here and the level of exposure of Americans-occupiers on the process of rising to the hundreds of times. It's one thing to control business 30 vessels, and another thing to economic legislation, which is associated with the turnover of science, with a turnover of mental accessories, with technology market. Appears as complex components, which in manual control does not line up. Since manual operation involves working with one or two objects, and here thousands of objects, and they all scatter like cockroaches. You grabbed one object, and the other ran away, because you have two hands after all, not a thousand. You do not Shiva. Because you can not manually resolve issues more profound systemic transformation. They will have to bring to the system, and in order to bring to their system, you need to change the last point, the question, in other words, the political system. Will have to take turns. Here on this and need six or seven years.

P. Fine. Now let's talk a little bit about the future. We in the 2018 presidential election will be. That's according to your opinion, whether he would run Vladimir Putin for a future period? And if it's not Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin, then, in fact, anyone? And what is generally configuration of political forces in these elections?

F. I believe that in future elections will be given a final, is a political response to the question: "Russia is a sovereign state or not? '. And the question is, in my opinion, will have to sound exactly like that. In other words, the election all parties that they will be involved, they will share at the party openly occupying, in other words on the side of the occupiers and the occupation of the political system, and the party's sovereignty, in other words, the party of the national liberation of the course or the state of the course, as Putin outlined in his own message. That would divide all political forces for the first time, because the Americans are afraid of and fight so that such a question in general stood in day or agenda. Why against me that much at war and resist? Since I put in the agenda of the day or question for Russia is very sensitive ideologically. Well, obviously, I did not put and puts Putin — I just only spy in this direction, in other words, only the army with him, and I reconnaissance. But the logic of this, because there is such a struggle. Since the very posing of this question for the RF means a specific answer. Since each of us has a grandfather who died for their country. Particularly so because the issue and will stand at the next election, in the context of the electoral structure, in other words, or it will be in these blocks and blocks of this issue will be a major, or a party, but in practice, in my opinion, after these elections should form already Coalition for the full restoration of sovereignty, which is already graduate from the process, including the configuration of the Constitution to restore the sovereignty of the country.

P. I realized the configuration of political forces, but so far no definite personalities. Sooner read more?

F. We have for the first time say that in Russia the policy will be determined not by acquaintance, and policy approaches, in other words, the ideology which, incidentally, is banned in Russia, in other words, it will be a definite violation of the Constitution. But, nevertheless, it will have to go. In other words, we go to the polls on the basis of beliefs purely ideological approaches. If you own the freedom of the motherland, then yes, you can go for elections and to participate in the grand coalition for the freedom of their country.

P. As for the configuration of the Constitution. What provisions are, in your opinion, are the major that you want to change. I understand how to create this Constitution, in other words, what criteria and who wrote it — is, in general, a trivial fact. I heard the time associated with the Central Bank. Heard the time associated with the ideology. What other moments, in your opinion, require the configuration of the Constitution in order to regain sovereignty?

F. In architecture, the most basic — the ideology, as a ban on the national ideology — a ban on life. What animal is different from a man? The animal does not have an ideology, in other words, a system of understanding the world, and the person she is. In other words, practically banning Americans in Russia ideology that they intended to degradation of the Russian human inhabitant of obeying the Constitution — to the level of the animal, and then that's what makes us telly animals, this is a consequence of the decisions that were taken in 1993 United States of America in the occupied areas of the USSR, Ukraine, and all the others. Because the question of ideology is all the same principal. Then it is followed by the construction of the system of municipal governance. The system of municipal government, we in Russia — not a state, it is colonial and it is written in the Constitution. The essence of this system of municipal governance is that on the Russian countryside banned all strategic controls, and the Constitution because of this and states. Means we have to change the Constitution the most important questions of the municipal government of the Russian Federation and the Russian people's self-organization in general.

P. Do you think it is necessary to turn away from the present system of separation of powers between the branches of government? Do you believe that the best system for us — a presidential or any other kind?

F. No. It is not a question of presidential or presidential system does not. I am not against the separation of powers and even. The issue lies elsewhere. At the state level, there is the strategic management of universities in general. In other words, let's say, we have all the rights of state power in totality, created on the basis of the state — level controllers. And they say this openly, and Medvedev about it read: "I am the manager" — he read about himself as president. Manager — the executive body. In other words, a pipe burst — they ran and patched, as they say. That's the level of Russian control and it is provided by the Constitution. In other words, not all strategic component. We can not think and invest resources in the development associated with long periods of 10 years, 20 years, 30 years. In comparison with the adjacent compe
titive civilizations, which have a sovereign right to do so, we are behind them once a year. And everything else — that's a consequence of this control system. Relatively speaking, when you come to work, then work on the rules of their own work. That's how the government is working on rules defined by the Yankees. In particular, in the context of governance. The president can make some decisions, but can not take a whole bunch of others. The prime minister — the same thing. There is a large reservoir of decisions that at the state level, with regard to our fate, can not take anybody, only the Americans, but the invaders. Here is that part shall be fixed, in other words, the vertical control system must be absolutely changed. We thought so, the Constitution requires somewhere in the harsh fifteen amendments. But at the moment read about the details of this process early, as the issue of forming the Constitution — is the question of consolidation of the national liberation movement. This process happens in three years. Then we can make conditions for the development of the modern Constitution.

P. And if you have some allies here that the national liberation movement, for example, in the executive branch?

F. Well, listen, ally — every man in Russia. It's a harsh thing. Ally in any resistance movement — it is 100 percent of the people of this country, who associate it with their own destiny, as many people have in their lot with Russia are not binding.

P. Well, not many, but there is, yes.

F. Many in the polls in general a lot. And all the others will be allies. Question only in that before it has reached. Ashes fathers should manifest itself in their — Russian citizens. It manifested itself in the elections — 64% for Putin, but it must be shown on the streets, in the active political position as sovereignty is won in the elections. He won only active personal role each person.

P. Thank you, Eugene A., not a bad interview. I think many will like.

Like this post? Please share to your friends: