"I always have a scapegoat for people": Interview with Ksenia Sobchak
film "Sobchak Case" - The anniversary dedication of Ksenia Sobchak to his father, the former mayor of St. Petersburg, was released in mid-June. The premiere started between the political campaigns of the daughter herself: in March she took part in the presidential elections (there have not been women since 2004), and in late June she will be engaged in party building. We talked with Ksenia Sobchak about political ambitions, offenses and women's agenda.
You did an amazing thing - you became more famous than your father. Even in the film, your participation is artistically necessary, because not everyone remembers Anatoly Sobchak, despite his historical role. Does not it confuse you?
It upsets me. At first I refused to be a lyrical heroine, I didn’t want the film to be perceived as if I wanted to frame, drag the blanket over myself. But Vera (film director Vera Krichevskaya. - Approx. Ed.) insisted on needing a personal story about my dad. Of course, I feel that from the point of view of recognizing the time of the Pope, alas, is already leaving, I made this film so that another generation of people knew that Sobchak was not just some official of the mayor's office who worked with Putin. Not only Ksenia Sobchak's dad. This is extremely unfair to him. But life in general was unfair to him. Dad is a tragic figure. Our film is about how a very talented person was absolutely trampled and destroyed. Ironically, as a child, I was terribly worried that my father was the mayor and that I was in his shadow. I even changed my last name in schools. And now I think: Lord, what a horror, they know me more than dad, this is terribly unfair.
Vera Krichevskaya said that when you interviewed Putin, he never smiled at you and did not try to please you at all. And at what point did Putin stop you smiling?
I cannot say that I was tracking this moment or that it is important for me. He does have some kind of modus when he fascinates people. And with us, he just did not try to do it. Maybe he thought it was unnecessary or harmful. At the same time, he was not late at all for the interview. I was warned: "Xenia, if you have a diet, take food with you - we will check it and you can carry it with you to the Kremlin." I was surprised: "Do you have tea and coffee there?" They: "Tea, coffee, sandwiches are there, but you can stay for the night. It is unclear how long you will have to wait. Here is Vladimir Rudolfovich (Solovyov, host of the TV channel "Russia", who made a film about Putin. - Ed.), when I last visited, I stayed overnight, because the interview was only in the morning. "I took the yogurt with a fright.
The interview was scheduled for six, we arrived at about five and tuned in for a long wait. At six o'clock a man came to us and said: "Everything, he is already on make-up." I think this is much more important than whether he is smiling or not. He gave an interview, agreed to it almost immediately, they gave us fifteen minutes, and he talked to me for about twenty hours, Sands (Presidential Press Secretary Dmitry Peskov. - Approx. Ed.) he began to interrupt him at some point: “Vladimir Vladimirovich, it’s time we have another meeting.” But he said: "Wait, wait." I think he was very passionate, and even when the interview was over, he continued to tell some things about these years to me personally. It was clear that for him it is an important topic.
At the screening of the film in the cinema "Giant" a boy of fourteen years old approached me and asked: "This film, which I am going to watch now, is he like that?" I say: "This film is like Star Wars, part one. Where Darth Vader is still on the side of the world, but he understands that people of the world do wrong, and he chooses the other side. And this is the end."
Shot from the film "The Case of Sobchak" Boris Yeltsin and Anatoly Sobchak
According to rumors, you lost the president’s position not even because of participation in Bolotnaya, although this also caused hostility, but because you were going to run a program on the Georgian TV channel Peak, and this turned out to be absolutely unacceptable for Putin - he hated the president Georgia Mikhail Saakashvili and considered your plans a betrayal.
I am sure that when relationships deteriorate, there is no one reason. Of course, Bolotnaya played a key role. But Vladimir Vladimirovich is so arranged: only for the fact that I immediately went to the Swamp area, it is difficult for him to punish. He is a man of delayed reaction. And I also know according to rumors from the Kremlin that the last stone in the coffin of my television career was precisely this incident with the TV channel Peak. I also worked on TNT, but I already closed the State Department show on MTV, and then a Georgian TV channel comes to me and says: "Let's do the show, we will pay for it, show it on Peak, and you you can still post it on YouTube. " I thought it was a good opportunity - besides, you can make a product for a wider audience than in Georgia. As I was told later, this caused a sharp reaction: it was perceived as if I had contacted Saakashvili.
Since then you have lost quite a lot. And then everything began to gradually return, not in the same volume, but still. Before your presidential campaign, there was already a conversation that you would be leading the show on the First, and even earlier your mother returned to the Federation Council some years later. Why are you forgiven?
First, I do not know, forgiven or not. At some point, I felt that the nuts began to loosen slightly. I haven’t changed anything: I didn’t praise the president, I didn’t join United Russia. But maybe, when you punish a person whom you treat well in principle, this is different from the situation when you punish a person whom you really think is bad.
I think that Vladimir Vladimirovich - and we showed this in our film - a person who is capable of not finishing off anyone. I remember, for example, after the Valdai Conference, he came out, he was surrounded by journalists, and I told him about Masha Baronov, who was then attacked on the Bolotnaya case: "Understand that she is a mother, she has a child, she is a girl." To which he replied: "And why does she offend our veterans?" - Something like this. And Shargunov (State Duma Deputy Sergei Shargunov. - Approx. Ed.), we stood together, picked up: "No, you understand, she is in a difficult situation, she has a baby child." After that, she was very quickly helped. Maybe something like that played a role with me.
In the case of Serebrennikov, I have not noticed any inclination for mercy.
In the case of Serebrennikov, I also do not notice, but I have an explanation. I told the president about the importance of this business. But Putin has a position on this topic, and it is very much felt. Serebrennikov for him is not just an abstract person who was put in prison. Someone - Shevkunov (Metropolitan of Pskov and Porkhov Tikhon,known for a relationship of trust with the president and his inner circle. - Approx. Ed.), some generals of the FSB or someone else, I do not dare to argue - I gave him the information and screwed it up so that he had a negative opinion about it.
They said that the real friend of the president, Yuri Kovalchuk, was the real initiator and sponsor of your campaign. And your mother, Lyudmila Narusova, allegedly led negotiations with him.
What about? !! No, I have never seen Yuri Kovalchuk in my eyes; I really do not know him. I opened the names of sponsors - they are not false people, not a grandmother, inscribed in an apartment. Sergey Adonyev and Vladimir Palihata are real billionaires. Why should one doubt their reality?
And about my mother, I will say this: she is able to contribute a fair amount of chaos to any negotiations. And my principled position is that with my mother - although I love her, she is my dear person - I do not do any business. For me, this is absolutely unacceptable, not because she is bad, but because she has such a character.
You were not strained when various liberal journalists, your colleagues, whose reputation you obviously counted on, refused to work at your headquarters, even at the head of your headquarters. Have you ever thought that you are going somewhere wrong?
No, let's dot the i's. Rumors that I offered to head the headquarters almost all in a row - a lie. I really offered to head the headquarters to Misha Zygary and Natasha Sindeeva. Misha refused me, explaining that he had his own project. Natasha said that she was personally ready to support me, but she could not work at headquarters, since this would be a violation of journalistic ethics. I suggested to Roman Superu you to do YouTube on this campaign, he refused. And there was also a strange story with Renat Davletgildeev: I also offered him to head the YouTube channel, he agreed, and then just disappeared, turned off all the phones. And then I ask the question: to whom will Misha Zygar go to headquarters? He will not go to work not only for me, but also for Navalny, and for Prokhorov.
You have a different type of relationship, he released your program on "Rain" while he was the chief editor. You, in my opinion, are friends. Well, that is, you are not Navalny for him, not Prokhorov and, of course, not Grudinin.
He will not go to anyone in principle! Many people think that politics today is some kind of garbage, where it is not clear what is happening, and this can compromise them and hurt their reputation.
Exactly. The Kremlin lets you to the polls, why should they get dirty.
I think everyone just comes from the fact that nothing happens. I am sure that if there was a time machine in which I could get into the future, I could come to people and say: “Look, today you support me, and tomorrow we are the second largest party in the Duma, the party of changes. After ten years, we have 40% of the Duma, we are competing with the Communists, we support liberal values, we are the real power changing the country. " I think that, of course, the majority of these people who refused would have made very different decisions. They just do not believe in victory, they do not believe in success, they do not believe that something can be changed. And so, in part, there is no success. Vicious circle.
Shot from the film "The Case of Sobchak". Sobchak on Palace Square
You are a very famous and recognizable person, but with a giant anti-rating. And so unpopular candidate is the face of the opposition. That is, if you talk purely pragmatically, your ambitions harm protest.
First, I am not the "face of the opposition." I'm just Ksenia Sobchak. Secondly, looking from what angle to look. There is Grigory Yavlinsky, who has been involved in politics for forty years, he has a huge political structure throughout the country, and for many he is considered a symbol of liberal decency, liberal principles. He has a reputation as a decent person. For the older generation, he is the last intellectual in power. And while he gets less votes in the elections than me! I think this is a huge victory for me, which means that it’s time for him to leave. Even I, a man with anti-rating, get more than Yavlinsky. How much would get Navalny, we do not know, because he was not allowed before these elections.
He had a rather convincing result in the Moscow elections.
There was another time and a different situation. The team and I sat on focus groups and compiled our survey in the country. And Navalny also compiled his polls, he just tactfully removed himself from the list of candidates. We all cook in the same numbers. It is a fact. You can endlessly shout that no, this is not true, and 60% will vote for us now. But there are independent polls who say the opposite.
Bulk to the TV is not allowed to even reach. It is difficult to determine the rating of a person when he is without a TV - this is not how it works in our country.
Yavlinsky and I also did not have access to the TV before entering the race. As you remember, I offered him to go to the TV - he refused.
In the configuration of the elections that you went to, it was offensive to him.
Why, if there are common goals? I assume that if we have a goal to change something, what's the difference, how do we all relate to each other? We must go and change, if there is such an opportunity. Maybe he would not have been allowed even as my confidant, they would have found some basis. But it is necessary to try. Four months is better to talk about it from the screens than to do nothing.
This is an open question. You have an amazing amount of haters on instagram. Previously, it seemed to me that you know how to disregard the fact that bad things are being said about you, that you are not loved or even hated, and just pass by. But then you gave an interview to Katya Gordeeva, and it turned out that you just think that people are jealous of you. You had a completely insulting remarks about colleagues from the TV channel "Rain", and in general about the intelligentsia, which allegedly does not vote for you because it does not like when someone leans out. This is not true and stamped. to envy you is the same as envy to Alla Pugacheva.
First, I have no more haters than the same TV channel "Rain" or Navalny. This is intentionally done. Secondly, I did not say that they envy me. I said that intraspecific competition is the most fierce, it’s not about envy, not about money. If tomorrow Pavel Lobkov will be on the NTV channel or on the First to do the "Bes" program, inviting the opposition there, reviving the television, they will still sneeze it for that, because as so, he went to the First Channel. Obviously, it would be better for all of us, even if we imagine that I am connected with someone and had some kind of negotiations (I deny it, but let's say it's true), if a person with liberal views, like me, will come to power and change the country.
You mean you're better than Putin? And you should be grateful for that?
No, no one should be grateful to me for anything. I'm just saying that it would seem normal to behave at least neutral to a person who is trying to do something, says the right things, helps in investigations that "Rain" including led. What's wrong with that?
We joked with my team that this campaign should have been inspired by the KGB in general - so that a person, seeing how yesterday’s comrades in one moment change, hated the community of facebook liberals. But seriously speaking, I was terribly disappointed. I can take criticism or attitude that voting for me is a bad idea. But I have complaints about the fact that after fifteen years, Viktor Shenderovich, for example, returns the argument about Dom-2 and other things from my past.
Nobody argues, "Dom-2" is a bad argument.
But this was a lot. For example, Arina Borodina scolded me all the time for the fact that I was doing something wrong in my campaign, and my husband Maxim defended her — that is, a person has such an opinion. But after I went to Grozny (Sobchak held a single picket in defense of the arrested human rights activist Oyub Titiyev. - Ed.) She wrote a post: “No, listen, so if Sobchak stood with a sign" Who killed Nemtsov? "- this, I understand, would be bold." And here Maxim does not stand up: “Arina, I understand correctly that now you are accusing Xenia of not standing with that sign?” This is a search for fleas and cavils for any reason.
Shot from the film "The Case of Sobchak". Vladimir Putin
Some people simply think that it is impossible to go to the polls with a spoiler or strike breaker. This is their position.
It is not true. Now Yashin goes to the mayoral elections with a spoiler - and everyone supports him. We understand that Dima Gudkov, two years ago, announced this, conducted a campaign for municipal deputies, saying that he does this in the framework of his future campaign. Ilya Yashin, with all due respect, gave an interview in February, where Jeanne Nemtsova said: "I will not go to this election." There you are, these are double standards, endless.
We also want the opposition to finally unite. But this is a little different - no one has been allowed to this election yet.
Here they are - double standards. Yashin, no man calls a spoiler, no one says: "Why, why did you lie in February, why aren't you going?" How so, why, why not unite around a normal decent candidate, not to unite forces? And most importantly, I do not mind, let everyone go to the polls, but those who shouted that I was a spoiler, why are you silent now? By the way, I don’t understand why they consider me a spoiler at all.
How is it why? Because you went to the polls instead of Navalny.
It is not true! I negotiated with Alexey Navalny, I tried to make a joint candidate. No one was ready for this role. Please go, am I delaying someone's way? I was ready to give up and give my resources, my money and my abilities to any other person. Something I did not see a lot of people. Where Love Sable or Lyaskin ((Nikolay Lyaskin, both FBK employees. - Approx. Ed.)? I would support them both with resources and personal support - instead of myself. It's just Alexey's logic, alas: "Either I go, or none." These are endless double standards.
Can I ask you a question too? Why, when Anna Mongayt says a monstrous, in my opinion, thing on the “Rain” TV channel, I personally heard it when the tragedy in “Winter Cherry” occurred, and I want it to remain in the interview and your answer remains in the interview.
This is me interviewing you.
When people who lost their children came to the rally, Mongayt said: "The one who now saddles this protest, Navalny or Sobchak, will become the leader of the opposition." She said, in my opinion, a monstrous, cynical thing. Что надо прийти, выступить, сделать трагедию умерших, погибших, сожжённых детей политическим мероприятием. И все это пропускают мимо ушей, никто её не критикует, в фейсбуке над ней не устраивают товарищеский суд. Ляпнула и ляпнула(реплику в эфире произносит не Анна Монгайт, а её напарник Павел Лобков. - Прим. ред.).
Люди из разных вещей делают политические мероприятия. Я не видела этот эфир, не знаю контекста, но политические оценки часто звучат хладнокровно. Странно, что ты наезжаешь на Аню. Она не устраивает танцы на поминках.
Хладнокровные фразы. If I had said such a phrase, I would have been crucified for another three weeks on Facebook with the words "what an abomination."
This is you a presidential candidate, there are different rates.
I'm talking about double standards, when you are looking for something to complain about, you will search endlessly. And when people like you, you forgive a lot. When Alexey Navalny makes videos during the campaign, where I like to fuck ...
With Grudinin. Listen ...
... And he talks about my trip to Bali, when the same people on Life also describe his trips to France, something no one criticizes or says what an abomination it is.
Wait, no one gave him an Oscar for these videos, but I saw them and ...
Did you write something on facebook?
I am not obliged to write anything on Facebook, but even if I had written it, it was solely about seeing the angry link of an employee of your headquarters Krasovsky and, feeling a trick, I looked at the original record. It seems to me that this was not the best reception - these wedding "miniatures" (parody of ways to increase turnout. - Approx. Ed.).One can argue about the artistic value of the video, but it looks “disgusting” only if you take it out of context with Grudinin, as you did. And if you look at the program entirely, in my opinion, it’s just a thing, made, perhaps, with insufficient taste, nothing more.
This is my main claim after these elections. Not envy, but these endless double standards are “just a thing with insufficient taste,” and if Ksenia Sobchak said something or blurted out something, or stumbled somewhere, then this is an abomination, disgusting, disgusting, and we always knew it. I am always discussed in a separate row. I always have a scapegoat on people. We have a concept that some people are untouchable. They can not be criticized, nothing can be done with them.
Shot from the film "The Case of Sobchak". Ksenia Sobchak
This is called reputation. A lot of things are forgiven for some people, and nothing forgiveness for some So the world is arranged, what is the problem?
And I think this is wrong and unfair. Reputation is fine, but you have to judge a person by specific actions at one time or another. What makes you think that I have no reputation? Why should there be distrust of me? Have I ever deceived someone? I call my sponsors openly, answering all the most awkward questions. When other people ask the same questions, they don’t answer, and no one pays attention to it at all. No one says: "No, wait, let's all measure by one piece".
Navalny was arrested, and you were allowed to go to the polls. Naturally, the relationship was different.
I demand not the same love, but the same questions and answers - this, I believe, is a fair demand. And you have the right to love anyone, but as journalists you must demand the same degree of candor from everyone. "Rain" should not have supported me. Independent media should treat everyone equally. But I was indignant at the violation of this particular principle. I have already cited the example of an absolutely shameful story about the opening of the memorial complex of Nemtsov.
Nemtsov's friends thought that you used his memory for political purposes.
Here again, "not friends", and specifically several people who live according to the principle "if Ksenia Sobchak achieves the release of a political prisoner, we will come to meet him the next day so as not to meet with her." They always believe that I use something. That I use my father, as I recently read, in order to propiaritsya, that I use Nemtsov, to popiaritsya. You say that blaming for envy is such a stamp, and I think that it’s absolutely disgusting, disgusting and low to explain everything that happens with the words “it’s just PR”. You at least once, as a journalist, you at least once called and asked them a question: "Alexey Navalny, do you think it is an abomination and a stamp (as you now ask me about envy) for any action of Ksenia Sobchak to answer:" It’s just PR. " Do you think this thesis in relation to any person a terrible abomination? "
Listen, I'll remind you once again that I'm interviewing you.
I didn’t hang a medal on my chest: "It was me, I did it." I just took the opportunity for the common good. And I think that in our terrible situation, the only thing we can do is use the opportunity at the right moment.
To arrange srach even around the memorial I consider terrible baseness and pettiness, this is the lack of scale. “Rain” instead of putting an honest headline that Katya Odintsova, the former wife of Boris, supported us, that his mother wrote words of gratitude on Facebook, and his son Anton came to the opening of the memorial, writes: “The family refused to participate in the ceremony”, - under the family for some reason, understanding Zhanna Nemtsova. No need to support me, but why lie? Does Zhanna Nemtsova have a monopoly on how to represent the Bori family?
Clear. Why do you support the legend that your result - this is the result of the opposition? From your words it actually follows that just as many people in the country - that is, 1.68% - with liberal views. You are aware that these are only votes for Ksenia Sobchak, whom the presidential administration has allowed to vote?
Again it is not true, I do not know how you took it. I do not think at all that I have any right to say that this is our common result.
You said literally, answering the question about your results: "There are not enough people with liberal views in the country, it must be admitted and be realistic."
Second, these are two different thoughts, do not you think? Do I think that people with liberal views are a minority? Yes, definitely. I am a realist, even if now all liberal people united, we would still be in the minority. And in order for us to become the majority, we must begin our journey by recognizing this fact. But it has nothing to do with my result. My result is definitely not all of this minority, but some part of it.
From your speech follows another. And the fact that Putin’s result is such a giant is on the conscience of the liberals. This is a monstrous substitution of concepts.
Once again, I did not say that my result is the result of all liberal-minded people. I have never taken such courage upon myself. Therefore, nothing else follows from the text. Read carefully. Yes, I think that Putin would have won anyway, but if he won with a score of 63% or 64%, or 65%, we would still live in a slightly different country. Because the person who receives such support also changes the world. He understands that with such a trust rating, he should not listen to anyone at all, no system liberals, Gref or Kudrin. He can do anything at all. And we become hostages of his policies. The increase in VAT and pension reform is a direct result of these figures, too.
At the same time, I believe that the boycott was badly hurt. You can not love Ksenia Sobchak, but you can not not love math. The more opposition people would come to the polls, the less Putin’s result would be. And I think that it is a responsibility, including those people who boycotted.
Shot from the film "The Case of Sobchak". Criminal case
I say that this is a substitution, it is already incorporated in your presidential nomination. You actually say: "Who is against me is against democracy".
No, I never said that, not true. During the campaign, I called many times: "If Ksenia Sobchak is so hateful to you, vote for Yavlinsky, spoil the ballot, but you have to go to the polls." The most destructive and pro-Putin idea of these elections is the idea of a boycott. It was beneficial to Putin, no one except Aleksei Navalny agreed with the idea of a boycott, because this was a position about Aleksei Navalny’s personal power. I did not say this alone, listen to Khodorkovsky, is he also an agent of the Kremlin?
With such a monopoly of power, it doesn’t matter, one could not walk. The boycott did not affect the outcome of the elections, but it helped not to support them in principle with their participation.
What does "not important" mean? You received 78%, the turnout was the highest, and it was all pro-Putin turnout, this is a fact, so the boycott helped make Putin a result of 78%.
I have more questions. On the L'Officiel site the other day it was announced that you are returning to your duties as editor-in-chief. That is, to Alexander Fedotov, the publisher of the magazine. How about the party? Or will you have part time party building?
This ad is formal. I'm already doing the magazine L'Officiel. After the election, I began my duties. Even before this announcement, we had the L'Officiel event at the Kinotavr. As I understand it, the announcement was made so that we could again write about it in the headline of the magazine.
I love fashion, this is my hobby. And I do not see a contradiction. Our president loves to ski, another big tennis loved, and I loved fashion. And I have the opportunity not just to have a home hobby, but to make a magazine professionally - I brought it to self-sufficiency in just two years. I have some goals, I am interested in doing this. And the dirty rumors that I agreed to head Forbes are very unpleasant for me, I immediately wrote that Kolya Uskov was my friend, and I now do not consider it possible for me to occupy this place in this way.