Practice English Speaking&Listening with: Press Center TV: The territory of Glasnost features Yevgeniy Kiselyov, journalist
This is Glasnost Territory, and I am Kseniya Turkova.
Our guest today is journalist Yevgeniy Kiselyov.
Good afternoon.
Hello.
I think that first of all we will talk about an event
that has been discussed a lot:
Mikhail Kasyanov testifying in the Khamovniki Court
and his statements, which I think are important,
but the question is: what will they lead to now?
Of course, if it were a real trial,
if it were indeed a transparent competitive trial
with an unpredetermined outcome,
then, I am sure, that would be the main witness for the defense.
After all, he was prime minister in the government
in the very years when Khodorkovsky and Lebedev
according to the prosecutors perpetrated their crimes,
and he clearly states that he is sure
that no embezzlement could have taken place,
that nothing extraordinary was happening,
and that Yukos was under close scrutiny
of various government agencies
and various executive bodies.
Is my understanding correct
that Kasyanov in fact said what he says in the book
the two of you have written together,in the chapter on Yukos?
In principle, the book, which we published last fall,
details the work on reforming tax legislation.
He [Kasyanov] noted one significant detail:
the government was in negotiation with many oil companies,
but in the process of those negotiations,
Khodorkovsky came to speak,
not for Yukos alone,
but for the entire powerful oil sector of the Russian economy,
as its informal leader.
That, apparently, added tension
to his relations with the ruling power,
which saw him as a potential leader:
today, he is the leader in his sector,
and tomorrow, he may well transform his leadership
in his business community
into a different kind of leadership.
into political quality.
That undoubtedly was one of the reasons
for the emergence of the Yukos Affair
and Kodorkovsky's personal case.
I want to say that Kasyanov's testimony, I am afraid,
with all its political importance,
with all the repercussions that his appearance as a witness
has caused in the Russian and foreign press,
very likely, changes nothing in the trial's scenario,
which is being written, not in the courtroom
nor in the deliberation room,
but elsewhere.
That is because, in the end,
I am convinced, a political decision will be made.
Do you not have a feeling
that the trial is being dragged out
because some higher-ups are in a tug of war
and cannot decide which way the balance will tip?
Well, you understand that this is a story
of an execute/pardon dilemma.
They have a hard time choosing between the two,
cause neither of the two decisions is good enough politically.
Clearly, another conviction of Khodorkovsky and Lebedev
would be a heavy blow
on the reputation and image of Russia,
especially after so many opinions voiced both domestically
and abroad
by very respectable figures in politics,
economics, arts, and literature.
Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger,
who was the PACE's special reporter on Yukos
and the Khodorkovsky Affair
and who was only a deputy
from an opposition party when she was preparing her report,
has now again become Germany's minister of justice.
You see, when we have a minister of justice of Germany
who has already formulated her opinion
the affair in an unequivocal way,
this is a somewhat different situation
as compared to 2004 or 2005.
In general, I think that the pendulum of public attitude
toward the case of Khodorkovsky has moved
in the opposite direction.
Look at the number of respected people.
There are public-opinion leaders
who during the first trial of Khodorkovsky,
expressing human compassion
and expressing their failure to understand
how the first trial was unfolding
and speaking critically enough about the government,
did not speak openly
and directly in support of Mikhail Borisovich [Khodorkovsky].
And now look, whenever you come to the trial,
You see someone sitting there in the audience.
At the same time, we understand
that the judge makes decisions on matters like changing the measure of restraint
looking back at the higher-ups.
I think that this trial,
if it goes on like this, rather slowly,
may well last until next year.
Lebedev's term ends in June of next year -
he has a little over one year left.
Khodorkovsky has a year and a few months -
his term ends in October.
We understand that the trial
could also last until October.
And then we will see what will happen.
I understand this as a part of some scenario.
At the same time, I do not want to upset anyone;
I understand the desire of the relatives,
friends, and all the sympathizers of Mikhail Borisovich
to see the trial end in his favor.
But I am afraid that a somewhat different scenario
is being played out,
a scenario with a conviction in the sentence
and a very lengthy, thorough court examination,
formally almost impeccable.
Do you think it is important for them
to see people come to attend the trial -
both simple people and well-known ones
you have spoken about?
Of course, it amounts to moral support for them.
As soon as they see a new familiar face in the courtroom,
a friend, an acquaintance, a business partner,
a person they have been in touch with in the government
or NGOs or anywhere else
or people they know by their looks,
of course, they smile and wave their hands in greeting.
Clearly, this is very important for them.
I met a woman there who brought them New Year presents
- that was back in winter - and she said:
I live at the other end of the city,
but when I think that they will come
and will see no one there
Therefore, I get up in the morning and go.
I was moved to hear that.
If you were the presenter of,let us say, Itogi,
what would you tell your viewers at the end?
I have always been saying
that we will meet again next time.
when the program ceased to exist.
Well, there are circumstances that are stronger than we are.
Thank you very much for this conversation.
We will meet again next time.
This was Glanost Territory,
and our guest was journalist Yevgeniy Kiselyov.
I am Kseniya Turkova.
