Novaya Gazeta journalist Vyacheslav Polovinko interviewed Russian Senator Andrei Klimov, Deputy Chair of the Federation Council Committee on Foreign Affairs, on US interference in Russia's political life. The Russian legislature decided to investigate the issue in response to charges that Russia had meddled in the US elections to prove that the shoe was on the other foot.
According to Klimov, the US is trying to influence the way Russians vote in every elections and supporting protests against the Kremlin. Klimov stressed that the US' plan is to create a "Juan Guaido" in Moscow, who would be tossed into the political ring, once the West assessed that Russian social instability was peaking. However, Klimov discounted this scenario as unrealistic, since the Russian authorities were diligently doing their "work". "If we wouldn't work, it would be the same as in Venezuela," Klimov asserted.
Below is the interview with Andrei Klimov:[1]
Senator Andrei Klimov (Source: News-front.info)
"One response by the authorities to the summer events in Moscow was the creation of a State Duma commission in order to investigate the facts of foreign interference in Russia's internal affairs. However, the exact same commission was formed in the Federation Council since June 2017, and it regularly finds traces of external 'intervention' during various election campaigns... through protests and through materials in various media (including 'Deutsche Welle', 'Meduza' and the 'BBC's Russian Service'). The main public official of the Council's Commission on the Protection of State Sovereignty is the 64-year-old senator from Perm, Andrei Klimov..."
Q: "Three weeks ago at a commission's meeting you said that you have documents confirming the West's interference in the Moscow elections."
Klimov: "I declared this back in 2017."
Q: "However, you have not published them. What kind of documents are you talking about? Outline [them]."
Klimov: "Firstly, we published a lot of documents: each of our reports is 100-150 pages long. I don't quite understand what documents you are awaiting … I, for example, read the current applicable document - the Federal Law of the United States of America - and there my homeland is called an “adversary”. The law prescribes that Russia be restrained by all means (apparently, the document in question is the law on individual and sectoral American sanctions against Russia, 2017. - V.P.) …"
Q: "This law does not deal with the interference in the Moscow elections."
Klimov: "Wait a minute. This law is designed to function (at least from the financial point of view) for two years: 2018 and 2019. If money was allocated, it has to be spent. The document is not only about elections, it is about a whole lot of processes that, according to the Americans, they have the right to implement on the territory of our sovereign country. Do you understand that? This right is recorded in another document: this too a US Federal Law from 2014, and it prescribes that the United States Secretary of State should personally engage in the development of Russian democracy [...] (apparently, the document in question is the 'Law on Support of Ukraine', which was adopted in 2014; the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs has publicly stated that it deals with the interference in Russia's affairs for money - V.P.). At the same time, he should do it both, relying on his team - that is, on diplomats - and indirectly through various organizations, structures and funds."
Q: "Everything that you say looks like fitting a task to an answer."
Klimov: "That's incorrect. What I've read to you are the federal laws of the United States of America, which no one has canceled and which are in operation and being implemented."
Q: "But still, there is at least a stylistic difference between the task of establishing democracy and the task of interfering in the Russian elections. How do you prove that it means one and the same?"
Klimov: "I will try to show you with one simple example of how this works. There are a so called 'mosaic technologies'. [...] In the 90s, everything was straightforward and frank - the US vice president could come and publicly indicate who should be the president of Russia. Now we don't observe anything like that, but this work continues so that it is hard to associate each separate action with the tasks formulated by the operative US laws. However when all these actions are gathered together then you will see that it is a link in the chain.
"Before the Russian elections, the States conducted sociological research in the Russian regions in order to apparently plan their actions more clearly and precisely. Officials at the US Embassy participated in conducting such studies in our country's territory. That and more, part of these studies (we also showed this documents in our reports) were funded directly by the Pentagon. The scheme works as follows: the Pentagon allocates money to one of the American universities, it hires the appropriate institution in Russia, and they use this money according to the Pentagon's orders.
"In these studies, there were, inter alia, such questions that tried to establish the attitude of the population of a particular region to a specific regional leader. After this kind of research was carried out, places were chosen where (from the point of view of our opponents) it would be appropriate to test the strength of certain elements of our political system. After that an event is announced that has been requested by the opposition and which was permitted by the authorities. The text appears on the website of the American embassy e.g.: place and time in Moscow when an authorized rally is planned.
"And then an interesting thing happens: the Americans write that it is very 'likely' that the rally will turn to unapproved format e.g. that participants will march to the presidential administration. So basically everything that happened a day later is foretold there. [...] Either the Americans knew about this in advance, or they participated in the creation of this scenario. […] And our Foreign Ministry rightly regarded this as interference in our internal affairs."
Q: "'Likely' is just an assessment of a possible development of events."
Klimov: "You probably didn't understand me. Imagine that our embassy in the United States would write that there would be a political action, and then people would go on certain routes and they would probably be arrested. This is prohibited by international regulations. And the Americans know this very well.
"There are many other examples. Not only that, those media that are directly funded by the State Department, they all fanned and spread these news (after all, not all people look at the embassy's website), selected the right interviewees and gave schemes and actual manuals by quoting our protest activists. The protest activists themselves do not have that kind of money to buy all these media: from Euronews to Radio Liberty and other affiliates e.g., Deutsche Welle."
Q: "Are they also under the wing of the State Department?"
Klimov: "Go and read the law that I spoke about, you will then have fewer questions. The law is not just a direct call for action; it is actually a commitment of the NATO allies to support the anti-Russian vector. For example, there is broadcasting from the Czech Republic, which cannot be called any differently other than intervention …
"Now you add here money for the training of our so-called protest activists (basically, their stake is on the regions); add the work to create platforms for various organizations that are recognized as undesirable in our country (which are also funded by the State Department and other American structures)."
Q: "In this case, you should have on your hands payment documents to confirm that such funding is actually taking place."
Klimov: "We have the necessary evidence."
Q: "Why don't you publish it?"
Klimov: "Because in our country we have a presumption of innocence… there are special organizations that should be engaged in this kind of work. Our commission appealed to the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation and to the Prosecutor General's Office so that they would carry out the corresponding additional work..."
Q: "You made a list of media outlets that, according to your version, interfered in the elections ..."
Klimov: "They continue to do this. For example the Euronews channel, I saw it with my own eyes, there's no need for any documents. On the Election Day, they put Mr. Navalny on every hour, with a call not to vote for any candidates from United Russia, although by law on Election Day there is a prohibition on any calls - for or against."
Q: "This list looks very strange: according to your logic only those media that provide a platform for the opposition interfere in the elections, and those who do not, are not interfering."
Klimov: "This is just one method of intervention - to provide the platform. I see something else. A thousand events take place in one day all around the world, but when the top 12 media channels affiliated with the Western states report on the administrative detention of one particular citizen in Moscow, this raises major questions..."
Q: "The events that took place in Moscow do not seem important to you?"
Klimov: "No. It looks like some kind of egocentrism: what we have is the most important thing in the world. But if you look at the events that happened on this day in the world, I assure you that you will find many topics that deserve serious research and public awareness."
Q: "By your logic, it is bad when 'BBC's Russian Service' or 'Meduza' make events from Russia their main focus?"
Klimov: "Does the BBC Russian Service have a Russian-speaking audience?"
Q: "Naturally."
Klimov: "And the timing is organized so that events that need to be said surprisingly go on air at the working hours or at the time that is needed to distribute such information. See what I'm getting at?"
Q: "Not really."
Klimov: "It is difficult to attribute interference in our internal affairs to information that is published in Chinese or Hindi. But the information in Russian, which goes on air exactly at the moment of voting and stops after the polling stations are closed, I can't call it other than prohibited campaign propaganda. By the way, I know a lot of journalists personally. They also understand all this. But they say that this is an editorial policy..."
Q: "Three weeks ago you said that the main goal of the West is to create their own 'Juan Guaido' in Moscow. To begin with: Juan Guaido is a part of a legitimate political system, the counterpart of Vyacheslav Volodin for example. Whom did you mean?"
Klimov: "You know, considering Volodin you went too far. As for Guaido: we have testimony given to our commission and confirmed by both the Venezuelan authorities and the Serbian authorities that he received special training 10 years ago in Serbia on the organization of so-called peaceful protests.
"This training was funded by the United States. We presented these documents publicly under light of eight television cameras. After that, Guaido apparently made it into the appropriate personnel reserve, and then, using the same methodology, only adjusted for Venezuela, was promoted to a leading position. And then the power in the country was destabilized. The Venezuelan events were not an improvisation, this was the implementation of the plan. This is not 'conspiracy theory', but 'conspiracy practice' in its purest form."
Q: "Nevertheless, speaking of Russian realities, you mean some kind of politician within the system who will become such a 'Guaido'."
Klimov: "I talk about an attempt to grow in Russia the same 'Guaido' using slightly different methods, but according to the same design, and then toss them into the political arena when the instability in society from their point of view [i.e. the West's point of view] will be at its peak."
Q: "Do you think that such a situation could develop in Russia (as it was in Venezuela), that these [politicians] may appear?"
Klimov: "No! Thank God, we have nothing of the kind."
Q: "Why bother then?"
Klimov: "We have nothing of the kind, because of our work. If we wouldn't work, it would be the same as in Venezuela."
Q: "If I understand correctly, one of the goals of those who 'interfered' in the elections was to discredit the Russian authorities. Didn't the Russian government discredit itself during the election campaign?"
Klimov: "I would like to say the following: everything that is being done by us is reflected in a carnival mirror... Let's say some event happened by accident, by the stupidity of an official or by the mistake of a law enforcement officer - it doesn't matter. This matter is analyzed instantly and used in line with the US laws of which I speak..."
Q: "Another thing. In August, you stated that someone tried to manipulate the protesters through YouTube. Explain how this is technically possible."
Klimov: "... on the eve of the day of silence [before the presidential election] we had questions for Google: information appeared that the users receive advertisements not ordered by them when accessing various resources. Suppose a person is looking for songs of the war years, and before this song appears, someone's physiognomy suddenly pops up on the screen, telling you something. I myself personally appealed to the developer and founder of Google Mr. Larry Page that this would be against Russian laws, as these persons would conduct political campaigning during the day of silence...
"This year, the complaint against Google was that one election message reaches a citizen (it pops up immediately in a search engine) and you can't find another one if you even wanted to: it is a filter that was obviously made not by a robot... It does not mean that we must forget what has already been done by Google. It's just that we are well aware that Google is also under the influence of US laws, so their management is also called to the intelligence commission, we know these transcripts...
"We are also working on this topic within the BRICS, and this is 40% of the world's population..."
Q: "In August, you stated that through YouTube you've received 'push' notifications about protests."
Klimov: "Have you heard what I just said? I said that we discussed this issue with Google last year, but now other stories have begun to unravel on this platform that we didn't agree on and which contradict our legislation …"
Q: "The thing is, you can't get push notifications on YouTube from a channel you are not subscribed to."
Klimov: "Once again I'm telling you. You turn on ... (thinks)"
Q: "What you are talking about is pre-roll: advertising before the video starts."
Klimov: "Yes, that's what I was talking about. Thank God! We've sorted it out. Do you know where this question could come from (which you ask me a third time already)? We have very different experts speaking at the commission's meetings… I always say at the beginning and at the end of the meeting: everything that is said here is the expert's personal point of view. We have experts who said that they received different notifications when they were in Moscow. We have it in the transcript."
[1] Novayagazeta.ru, October 28, 2019.
