Silent scene. Alexander Sokurov - about the situation around the Gogol Center

Kirill Serebrennikov. Photo: RIA Novosti

The fact that Serebrennikov was being questioned as a witness was mentioned only at the end of the day, somehow casually, quickly, very indistinctly. But from morning until late evening, everything around this story became more and more sinister and completely confused.

Even those who do not like Serebrennikov or hate him (and, alas, there are many of them, I think) cannot dispute that he is very talented. Makes a strong impression. Influences minds. Inspiring. He has recognition in his beloved homeland and abroad. And so it seems that people who have little recognition and little approval are not able to survive this. Probably, the boredom of their inarticulate existence will somehow be diversified by such a tent. Invigorates.

What is most striking is the pomp with which everything is arranged. Who came up with all this, who winked and nodded to whom, who gave the go-ahead?

Is the most sinister conspiracy in the world really being unraveled before our eyes with abstract courage? And what do they want, what do they achieve? End Serebrennikov's exclusivity? Intimidate him? Break? Force them to emigrate? Let him become lethargic, apathetic, indifferent? Let him sit and not rock the boat? Himself, and at the same time those for whom he is an authority? What sin does he need to confess to so that everyone can calm down?

The performers, as Serebrennikov himself said, “were delicate.” So, questions for the “directors” of the big top show. To those who believe that they have the right to administer “a personal version of justice.”

But I have no idea what they are thinking. And not only do they not give clear answers, they don’t explain themselves to us at all. Zero comments!

Therefore, I turned to director Alexander Sokurov for clarification. I asked Alexander Nikolaevich what, in his opinion, was happening? And how should we feel about this? How about some specific case? Or is this something that can happen to any of us at any moment? Right here - according to Andrei Platonov: “... look at your life as a criminal occupation and wait every minute for punitive power”?

Sokurov said that the next day after all these searches and interrogations he spoke with Serebrennikov on the phone.

Zoya Eroshok, columnist for Novaya Gazeta

Alexander Sokurov

director

- I talked to him. True, briefly. He was rehearsing that day. I asked him how he was feeling. Kirill said: “Like in Moloch.” (“Moloch” is one of Sokurov’s films. — Z.E.)

I wouldn't call his state panicky. I didn’t have the feeling that he was scared or afraid.

But everything looks very strange. This demonstrative form is first and foremost. Kirill is clearly not a criminal. And he is not a politician. Then how to understand what is happening?

All this is unpleasant. The atmosphere itself is unpleasant.

Kirill is a very active director. He has something real and credible to present to society. He is a perfect active “machine” for the production of artistic ideas. It continuously creates artistic values. Neither day nor night does he stop searching in this direction. He stages ballets at the Bolshoi, stages operas, puts on dramatic performances, and makes films. There are always a lot of students and young people around him.

And of course, all these searches and interrogations are emotionally devastating. I understand this very much.

I would like to look into the eyes of the investigator who is speaking with the greatest director Kirill Serebrennikov. Does he, the investigator, understand who he is talking to? No, it’s not that since Serebrennikov is a director, he is outside the law. But I know Kirill. I have great respect for him. And I know that in no way, even the slightest degree, could he participate in anything unworthy. In my inner essence I couldn’t. He's too significant. And too smart.

As a director, I know what it means to be accountable for the money you receive to create films or plays. Everything is there in plain sight. This is a tough responsibility. And the reporting is very, very specific. And here - 200 million rubles for 2011-2014. Why didn’t questions arise before when they submitted reports to government agencies? And why should Serebrennikov answer these questions in such a shocking form in terms of emotional impact? Why should he be a priori a suspect?

Have you noticed that we talk about form all the time? Which, yes, may be more important than the content. Which, yes, like a hoop, holds.

I try this story on myself. And I understand: if they cross my threshold in this form, then the end has been put on me. I’m no longer there... And this is no exaggeration. It is impossible to escape from such intricacies. Simply impossible! It seems to me that every citizen understands this.

We have a difficult memory for such things. And, by the way, we were not told that in this regard, something has changed very dramatically since those past times. The authorities did not tell us publicly: “Citizens of Russia! Don't worry! Moloch is no longer there. There have been changes in the security forces. We are not the heirs of that system when it was possible to suspect everyone and when it was impossible to escape from under these suspicions.” And even if we are told this, it sounds very unclear.

I repeat: I do not claim that there are people who are above or outside the law. No! But decorum must be observed. Decency!

Is it too early to panic about the situation around the Gogol Center?

For two days now, information has been actively discussed that searches are being carried out at the Gogol Center and at the home of its artistic director Kirill Serebrennikov. Oleg Tabakov, Fyodor Bondarchuk, Chulpan Khamatova and many others spoke in defense of the theater and its ideologist. What is this - really financial irregularities or a political order? Realnoe Vremya found out the opinion of people who know Serebrennikov well.

The case of 200 million

Kirill Serebrennikov, who was searched on Tuesday and is a witness in the case of the theft of 200 million, was interrogated and released home with the condition that he will appear for interrogations upon request. At the Gogol Center, where searches were carried out throughout the day, the troupe decided not to cancel the performance and not let the audience down.

A spontaneous rally was held near the walls of the theater, and Chulpan Khamatova and Evgeny Mironov came to it. Khamatova, who is currently rehearsing for a performance at the Gogol Center, read out an appeal from cultural figures in defense of Serebrennikov. It says that Kirill is a director who is known outside of Russia, a bright director, a decent and honest person. The appeal was signed by top figures of Russian culture, including Mark Zakharov and Oleg Tabakov.

“It’s hard for me to judge what’s going on there. Serebrennikov was not arrested; he was interrogated as a witness. So far, the ex-director of the center and the chief accountant have been detained. I know Kirill as a normal director, a creative person, he stages performances all over the world, however, we work in a different style. It seems to me that it is too early to panic until no charges have been brought against him. I don’t think politics are involved here; I don’t remember Serebrennikov making any political statements. By the way, he directed both Surkov and Prilepin. Now there are actively shouts in his defense, but it’s too early to fuss, nothing terrible has happened yet. We need to see who is screaming, maybe the one who wants to promote himself on this story? I hope that nothing bad will happen to Kirill Serebrennikov,” says the artistic director and chief director of the Kachalovsky Theater Alexander Slavutsky, who knows Serebrennikov from his work in Rostov-on-Don.

“First of all, Kirill Serebrennikov is one of the leading masters of Russian theater, whose performances always attract attention, often causing diametrically opposed assessments, which once again testifies to their originality.” Photo m24.ru

"The charges raise questions"

“First of all, Kirill Serebrennikov is one of the leading masters of Russian theater, whose performances always attract attention, often causing diametrically opposed assessments, which once again testifies to their originality. He is invited to productions in many European countries, his films participate and win in international festivals. In addition, Serebrennikov is one of the very few drama directors who feels quite confident in the territory of musical theater.

What they are trying to accuse him of today raises a number of puzzling questions. Even more bewildering is the orgy of emergency that has unfolded around the Gogol Center, which does not seem to be involved in any criminal cases, and yet its artists and other workers are treated like bandits or, on the contrary, hostages. But, as can be understood from the statements of the investigative authorities, the fact of the theft itself has not yet been established, it is spoken of as suspected, and Serebrennikov is still involved in the case only as a witness. I can imagine that someone very influential said “fas.” Perhaps they want to punish Serebrennikov for his civic position, for impartial statements about what is happening in the country, and at the same time once again try to intimidate the creative intelligentsia. Or maybe it’s even simpler: someone really needed the Gogol Center,” theater critic Dmitry Morozov outlined his vision of the situation.

“I have known Kirill Serebrennikov for fifteen years. I know very well. Not only as a wonderful theater director, of whom the Russian theater can rightfully be proud, not only as a unique theater teacher who taught one of the brightest courses in recent times at the Moscow Art Theater School. I know him as my close comrade and friend. It’s difficult for me personally to talk about his human qualities without superlatives. As well as about his absolute integrity, of which I am not only confident, but absolutely convinced. He is a true fanatic, one hundred percent devoted to the theater, performance, and artistic idea. Ready to take off the last thing from myself in order for the performance to happen. And I have seen such manifestations of him more than once. Talking about others is someone else's tragic mistake. I want to believe that it was accidental and not conscious,” Evgenia Kuznetsova, head of the literary department of the Sovremennik Theater, commented on the situation around Kirill Serebrennikov to the publication.

This assessment can be completely trusted - Kuznetsova starred in one of the main roles in Serebrennikov’s film “St. George’s Day”, so she has personal impressions of working with the director.

The film “The Apprentice” in Cannes was awarded the Independent French Press Prize and was included in the long list of films nominated for the European Film Academy Award. Photo kuban24.tv

Serebrennikov’s penultimate film, “The Apprentice,” was presented in the “Un Certain Regard” program at the Cannes Film Festival last year. One of the co-producers of the film was the co-founder of the Tatarstan Living City Foundation, Diana Safarova. The film was awarded the Independent French Press Prize in Cannes and was included in the long list of films nominated for the European Film Academy Award.

Yet the story is strange and disturbing. A search of the house of a person who is a witness in the case, employees of the Gogol Center, who during the search in the building were deprived of means of communication and were held in the theater for some time.

“In the current situation, it is difficult to maintain a neutral position, it is difficult not to succumb to emotions and not draw any conclusions. All the information we have is from the media, and in this case we can only express words of support to Kirill Semenovich and Sofya Apfelbaum, great professionals, these are some of those who live in the theater, and they cannot have any other life. I sincerely believe that the situation will be resolved in a fair manner,” Inna Yarkova, director of the Living City Foundation, commented on the story to Realnoe Vremya in a balanced manner. Inna talked with Serebrennikov, discussing various projects.

Perhaps yesterday's situation around the Gogol Center was perceived by the public as overly emotional; perhaps everything will become clearer in the coming days. But the country has a strong genetic memory. And the stories of Meyerhold, Tairov and others like him are well known not only to theater scholars. God willing they will never happen again.

Tatyana Mamaeva

On November 13, the Meshchansky District Court of Moscow opened the next hearing in the case of the Seventh Studio, whose employees are accused of embezzling 133 million rubles from the state budget. Funds were allocated for the “Platform” project, which was headed by director Kirill Serebrennikov. A 360 correspondent is working on site.

At the beginning of the hearing, Judge Irina Akkuratova asked if the parties had any motions. There were none.

Kirill Serebrennikov began to testify. He is wearing a T-shirt with the inscription “Rus, what do you want from me?” The prosecutor began asking questions to the director.

Actresses Chulpan Khamatova and Liya Akhedzhakova came to support him.

The judge asked Serebrennikov about the supreme body of the ANO “Seventh Studio”.

“We signed a charter with Itin (Yuri Itin - ex-general director of the Seventh Studio - editor's note). As a founder, I had the right. We did an audit, and I understood that it was within my right,” the director replied.

The next question is whether the defendant exercised his rights as a founder in the future. Serebrennikov answered negatively.

When asked who made the seals and who kept them, he stated that they were in the accounting department. Serebrennikov, according to him, does not have more detailed information.

About the contract with the Ministry of Culture, Serebrennikov said that he knew that the money should be spent on the Platform project. “I don’t really remember, but it was unclear, technical things were not written down. I signed creative reports. I don’t know financial and technical things,” the defendant said.

The judge asked a question about ANO producer Ekaterina Voronova. “She is now somewhere in Europe,” Serebrennikov answered.

When asked if he could talk about the costs of the events, the defendant answered in the negative.

Answering a question about his salary, Serebrennikov said: “In the beginning it was less - 80 thousand. I asked for an increase in my salary - it turned out that this was seven days a week, 24 hours. Then I received 100 thousand.”

The judge asked if Serebrennikov knew about the presence of a corporate card in the Seventh Studio ANO. The defendant stated that he found out about her after the case was opened. According to him, he had no interest in this.

Kirill Serebrennikov.

The judge asked whether the Seventh Studio events were held on the territory of the Gogol Center from 2011 to 2014. “When we opened after reconstruction, the performances were introduced into the repertoire as part of the Platform project,” the director answered.

The defense asked to read out file volume 219 with receipts showing who gave what money. The judge reads that the money was accepted by Malobrodsky from Serebrennikov “for current expenses.” The amount mentioned is 20 thousand dollars.

Ex-producer of the Seventh Studio, Alexei Malobrodsky, was invited to the podium.

The lawyer asked him to tell what the Platform project was. “The idea arose without my participation, in Serebrennikov’s imagination. I learned about it when I met Serebrennikov at the end of March - beginning of April 2011,” Malobrodsky said. He noted that this was a large-scale project to promote contemporary art.

He added that Itin invited him to the Platform, but the decision to collaborate was agreed upon with Serebrennikov. “Several meetings took place to discuss the project. I received the first offer from Itin,” said the ex-producer of “Seventh Studio”.

When asked about his relationship with Itin, Malobrodsky replied that they had no commercial or business relations.

The judge asked whether Itin was required to perform any additional duties. Alexey Malobrodsky answered negatively. According to him, formally he was subordinate to Itin. “But being the general producer - the artistic director who gave creative tasks,” added Malobrodsky. He also stated that he received a salary of 100 thousand rubles.

Malobrodsky said that he and Serebrennikov communicated daily. Everything that happened was a joint endeavor. Malobrodsky did not take upon himself the courage to make decisions that could affect the creative process.

“Decisions that required significant expenditure of money, I consulted with Itin and received approval from him. The accounting department prepared reporting documents - both accounting and management. But the nature and volume are unknown to me,” said the ex-producer of the Seventh Studio.

Malobrodsky confirmed that Itin wrote out a financial power of attorney for him. The ex-general director himself was in Yaroslavl. The power of attorney appeared so that Malobrodsky could represent the interests of the Seventh Studio.

“During my work, I never signed an agreement with IP Serebrennikov,” Malobrodsky said.

The judge is considering volume 242 of the case. The lawyer asks whether Malobrodsky signed an agreement dated September 1, 2011 (the first day of the ex-producer’s work in the Seventh Studio project) with Sinelnikov (entrepreneur Vasily Sinelnikov - editor's note).

Malobrodsky says that the signature on the contract is fake. “Earlier, when Kharitonov’s lawyer proposed to examine these documents, the page numbering in the file did not match. This characterizes the level of the evidence base,” said the ex-producer.

Malobrodsky pointed out the violations: “The investigation took a document from 2013 and attached documents from a year ago. From my point of view, this is an obvious falsification. Another forgery of the investigation, which the prosecutor’s office did not pay attention to.”

The lawyer asks you to pay attention to volume 56, where there is also an agreement confirming financial relations with IP Sinelnikov. Malobrodsky says he doesn’t remember him.

Liya Akhedzhakova comments on the interrogation in a loud whisper: “Where is Maslyaeva (Nina Maslyaeva - former chief accountant of the Seventh Studio - editor's note)? She's the main one. How cleverly they brought her out!”

The defendant was asked to familiarize himself with the 2011 agreement. According to Malobrodsky, this is one of the agreements that were concluded with various individuals and legal entities in the process of preparing the Aria project.

“Elena Tuposeva supervised the modern dance direction. She understood that we were in a difficult situation. We may have problems with timely payment. We entered into an agreement for them to pay the expenses, which we will then return,” said the ex-producer.

Lawyer Ksenia Karpinskaya asked whether Malobrodsky asked anyone to sign for him. The defendant answered in the negative.

With my knowledge, no one has ever signed documents for me. During my work, I was on the Platform almost around the clock and could cope with this task

Alexey Malobrodsky.

The lawyer asks whether Malobrodsky knew Serebrennikov before the Platform. The answer is negative.

When asked whether functionality was discussed, the defendant said that his task was to organize creative tasks. “Serebrennikov pointedly avoided administrative functions. He always insisted that his sphere of activity was creativity,” said Malobrodsky.

Karpinskaya is interested in what the “supreme body” of the ANO “Seventh Studio” is doing. “The functions of this body are limited to dismissing the general director, organizing an audit, and the like. I never understood the participation of such a body in settlements,” Malobrodsky said.

The lawyer asks about Maslyaeva. The defendant replied that they met in the early summer of 2011. “We needed a competent financial specialist. Maslyaeva was introduced to me by Itin. We met, as a rule, in a cafe next to the Modern theater, where Nina Leonidovna worked. I kept her informed about events and cost forecasts. Based on these data, it was possible to make a certain forecast regarding financing,” added the ex-producer.

The lawyer clarifies whether Maslyaeva reported that she had been convicted. "No. We have a difficult relationship. From my point of view, she performed her duties in bad faith. I had a strong impression that this is not the person the project needs,” said the defendant.

“I outlined my complaints to Itin and raised the question that we should invite another person to this position. But my request was not heard. There was no fiery friendship between us, but the relationship was correct. We understood that we were doomed to work together,” Malobrodsky said.

Karpinskaya asked if he knew about the chief accountant’s salary. “Nina Leonidovna had the highest salary in the organization - 150 thousand rubles. This made me jealous, I won’t hide it,” said the defendant. (Malobrodsky and Serebrennikov received 1.5 times less - editor's note)

Lawyer Karpinskaya asks that a letter from Malobrodsky’s computer be included in the case. The defendant believed that his salary should be higher and approached Serebrennikov about this. This letter was not entered into the protocol. The correspondence was saved on the computer.

Serebrennikov writes: “Dear Lesha! This is a very awkward conversation. The letter is at the wrong address, I can only lend it to you. As far as I know, there is no money at all on the Platform right now. I will be grateful to you if you raise my salary too. The amount you are looking for is 200 thousand and I like it.”

Malobrodsky told how he met Sofia Apfelbaum. She headed the theater department of the department for supporting contemporary art and creativity in the Ministry of Culture. Malobrodsky wrote a letter asking for support for the project “Operetta Make-Believe.” We resumed our acquaintance with the beginning of the preparation of the “Platform” project, and met occasionally.

Karpinskaya asked whether the defendant gave Sofia Apfelbaum false information about the creative component of the Platform project. The answer is negative.

In addition, Malobrodsky said that he met ANO producer Ekaterina Voronova in 2011. He doesn't know who invited her to work. He mentioned that Serebrennikov knew her before. Catherine was also dissatisfied with her salary, which is why she turned to Malobrodsky. It was discussed that Voronova would combine work on the Platform with something else. But in practice this was impossible. According to the defendant, Voronova was a useful worker - she devoted a lot of time to the project, knew English and German well, translated documents and communicated with foreigners on the site.

The lawyer asked how the performances of “Platform” were rented on the stage of the Gogol Center.

“When forming the repertoire at the Gogol Center, we exploited performances that belonged to the Seventh Studio ANO. We paid certain amounts of money,” Malobrodsky said.

The amounts were determined in different ways. “At some point, we agreed that the contracts would include a minimum amount. That is, if the fee for the sale of a performance is one and a half million rubles, and the costs are higher, we agreed on a fixed amount. It was a balance that was found,” the defendant added.

After a break in court, the interrogation of Malobrodsky continues.

“I would like to add. The Gogol Theater has never reported to the Ministry of Culture for the production of “Seventh Studio” performances. That is, there was no “doubling” of funds. But the reports included the number of tickets that we sold during the performances,” the defendant said.

The lawyer asked what funds were used to organize the Seventh Studio events before funding was received.

Not at all. People worked for free out of interest in the project

Alexey Malobrodsky.

According to the defendant, besides him, Itin, Serebrennikov, curators of directions - Elena Tuposeva, Sergey Nevsky, multimedia - Alexey Shulgin and Aristarkh Chernyshov took part in the project at the preparatory stage. Ekaterina Voronova, Anna Belyaeva, Daria Koval joined later.

“I can say that the cost of the vast majority of our events, contrary to false statements, was underestimated. The cost of our projects is below market prices. A conscientious examination would confirm this,” says Malobrodsky.

According to Karpinskaya’s lawyer, the investigation claims that Apfelbaum included conditions in the competition documentation that would provide Seventh Studio with an advantage over other participants. “This is a crazy formulation,” replied Malobrodsky.

In October 2011, the defendant met Sinelnikov. Malobrodsky, answering the lawyer’s question, stated that he had no commercial relations with him. “He was presented as a person who could carry out orders for the production of decorations and other work,” the defendant said. Maslyaeva introduced him.

Malobrodsky said that he did not remember using Sinelnikov’s services. But within the Gogol Center he carried out two contracts.

Lawyer Karpinskaya draws the judge’s attention to the fact that the case contains documents indicating cooperation between the Seventh Studio and Sinelnikov. “This is clearly another scam by the investigation,” says Malobrodsky. He is sure that Sinelnikov collaborated only with the Gogol Center.

After the break, Karpinskaya initiates a conversation about the ex-accountant. Nina Leonidovna, according to Malobrodsky, always complained about the lack of money, however, in the materials of the criminal case there is information that she bought a car for Sinelnikov. “It’s obvious to me now that they were close,” the defendant said.

The conversation turns to line producers. At the first stage, they used cash more often than others. In cases, for example, when the supplier is ready to release the goods only when a receipt for the transaction arrives from the bank, and the goods are needed tomorrow. And in this case, Malobrodsky spoke or wrote to the chief accountant, confirming the need for these expenses.

A large number of transactions were carried out in cash, which I never saw anything illegal about. At the same time, it seemed to me that it would be more correct to use non-cash payments

Alexey Malobrodsky.

It was decided to postpone the court hearing on November 16 at 10:00. This is due to the threat to the health of the defendant Malobrodsky. Several times during the interrogation he complained of feeling unwell.

A criminal case against the non-profit organization ANO “Sedmaya Studio” was initiated back in 2015, but only two years later it received wide public attention. In May 2017, searches took place at the Gogol Center, whose artistic director was Kirill Serebrennikov. Later, his apartment was also inspected. The director himself was detained on August 22, 2017 in St. Petersburg, during the filming of the film “Summer,” and was transferred to Moscow.

At the same time, the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation opened a criminal case into the theft of budget funds on an especially large scale. The investigation stated that the leaders of the Seventh Studio stole about 200 million rubles between 2011 and 2014. They received this money from the Ministry of Culture for the Platform project.

The main defendants in the case were director Kirill Serebrennikov, ex-producer of the Seventh Studio Alexey Malobrodsky, former general director of the organization Yuri Itin and former employee of the Ministry of Culture Sofya Apfelbaum.

The charges were based on the testimony of the chief accountant of the Seventh Studio, Nina Maslyaeva. The woman was the only one who agreed to cooperate with the investigation and also admitted guilt. The rest of the defendants in the case deny her testimony.

Director Kirill Serebrennikov has been charged with fraud on an especially large scale. He did not admit his guilt, the Investigative Committee reported. Political scientist Vladimir Slatinov commented on the situation in a conversation with Kommersant FM host Natalya Zhdanova.

— Why do you think the situation with Kirill Serebrennikov began to develop this way? We should remember the president’s reaction to the searches at the Gogol Center and Serebrennikov’s house. This did not convince the security forces?

“We remember that one of the leaders of the Russian national republic named Markelov met with the president, where it was announced that he was running for senator, and then was detained. Russian security forces have recently been behaving, I would say, quite autonomously within the vertical of power, and in those high-profile cases that they initiate, they act within the framework of their own logic, as we now see, not even paying attention to the signals that are sent to them by the supreme power. And this must be understood. From the point of view of how the Russian law enforcement system works, if you have fallen into its millstones, then extremely tough political will is now required to stop these millstones. As we see, hints from the top official were not enough.

— Why do you think this signal from the authorities was not received properly?

“This is a very important symptom of a process that began some time ago. I have already given the example of the Markelov case, there is a very resonant case of Alexey Ulyukaev - we also see that the Russian law enforcement system, the security system, to a large extent, already operates autonomously, as a kind of relatively independent player, and is used as a tool in the struggle of various influential interest groups . And control over this system by the supreme power - let's call a spade a spade - has been largely lost. This is the key reason for what is happening, including with Serebrennikov. Serebrennikov is the next link in the chain after Markelov, Ulyukaev and other examples.

— How do you think this story can develop further? Again, I would like to recall the president’s words that those who committed economic crimes should not be kept in custody. Will this signal also not be perceived?

“I don’t rule out that this will happen if the Kremlin now very harshly and very clearly, absolutely, let’s say, unequivocally, does not make it clear to the Investigative Committee that the signals that come from behind the battlement and from the mouth of the president must be perceived and understood. But we see three, I think, very important consequences of what happened today. Firstly, of course,

Huge reputational damage has been caused to the Russian supreme power and Russia as a whole, because we are talking about a world-famous director. Secondly, we understand that against the background of the unfolding presidential campaign there will be an extremely painful reaction from the creative intelligentsia in relation to the supreme power - and this is now a big problem for the Kremlin. And finally, this is, of course, a very dangerous symptom of the autonomy of the security forces,

which are increasingly turning into a kind of autonomous tool in Russia, used in the economic and resource struggle of various factions of the elite.

— Do you want to say that our security forces are no longer subordinate to the supreme authority to the proper extent?

- In any case, the Serebrennikov case, as well as the situation with Markelov and Ulyukaev, let’s be honest, they are talking about this to a large extent. And if now there is not a very tough and unambiguous reaction from the Kremlin that will stop this flywheel, then the three problems that I mentioned will become extremely serious for the Russian supreme power.

— In general, to what extent is the Serebrennikov case political, in your opinion?

- You know, it’s hard to say. Most likely, there is testimony from the chief accountant. But what matters is how they are obtained. It seems to me that when Serebrennikov’s passport was taken away, in general, it was already clear in which direction the situation was developing. Therefore, the security forces, of course, will now insist that they have grounds to continue the procedural actions. But here it is important to understand how public opinion perceives this. But public opinion does not perceive this as a triumph of the rule of law - you can give a lot of examples, the latest is Elena Skrynnik, against whom the case was closed in Switzerland due to the absolute indifference of Russian law enforcement agencies. That is, everyone sees that Russian law enforcement agencies act very selectively. And the case of Serebrennikov is also an example of such, I would say, selective attention on the part of the Investigative Committee. Everyone understands this, and this is precisely what undermines the reputation of the security forces, the Kremlin, and the Russian state as a whole, because it turns out that in Russia now the public interest is not being realized by the security forces. Our security forces have moved to a different state and are operating within the framework of a different program and a different matrix.