Nadezhda Prusenkova of the newspaper’s press service said that the DDoS attack on Novaya Gazeta’s server has increased in strength since its initiation on Tuesday morning. The site now receives one and a half million hits a second, effectively paralyzing it.

“We have prepared and are submitting today an appeal to law enforcement agencies, in which we basically are demanding that criminal proceedings be initiated,” Prusenkova said.

Novaya Gazeta is one of the only newspapers in Russia that remains openly critical of the Kremlin. Four of its journalists have been killed since 2001, including Anna Politkovskaya, whose October 2006 murder shocked the world and drew unprecedented scorn onto the Russian government. “There are visitors in our editorial office every day who have nowhere else to bring their troubles,” Politkovskaya wrote before her death, “because the Kremlin finds their stories off-message, so that the only place they can be aired is in our newspaper, Novaya Gazeta.”

“The editors of Novaya Gazeta consider this attack to be a direct violation of media laws, an impeding the realization of the professional activities of journalists, a violation of the rights of our readers to obtain prompt information and a breakdown of the agreement with our advertisers,” reads a post on the newspaper’s LiveJournal blog, which editors are using to publish material while the website remains inaccessible.

Editors of the newspaper suspect that the attack could be motivated by its recent extensive coverage of controversial house demolitions in the Moscow village of Rechnik. “Our correspondents are on duty in the village around the clock and send the editors photographs and videos, testimony from the victims, and also property ownership documents that still have not appeared in the news,” they said in a blog post.

“According to the information that we have, the house demolitions in the village are planned to be completed by Monday. And the materials that began to appear on our website are an absolutely undesirable background for this,” the post concludes.

Prusenkova noted that editors are attempting to find an alternative domain for the website in addition to LiveJournal. “But the problem is that the attack immediately goes exactly to the domain name ‘Novaya Gazeta’,” she said.

Russian opposition websites are quite frequently subjected to DDoS attacks. They often correspond with important political events, such as elections or large-scale protests. The website for the opposition movement Solidarity underwent such an attack in September 2009, after a presentation of movement leader Boris Nemtsov’s critical brochure on Moscow Mayor Yury Luzhkov.

US President Barack Obama sat down for an interview with the Novaya Gazeta, an independent paper known for its in-depth journalism and criticism of the Kremlin.  During the conversation, Obama backed President Medvedev’s judicial reforms, and repeated an earlier pledge to support worldwide freedom of speech and human rights.  The complete interview will be published in full on Monday, June 6th, but Novaya Gazeta has released some excerpts.

“I agree with President Medvedev when he said that ‘freedom is better than the absence of freedom,’” Obama told the paper.  “I see no reason why we cannot aspire together to strengthen democracy, human rights, and the rule of law as part of our reset.”

Asked about the murder of Anna Politkovskaya, a Novaya Gazeta investigative journalist gunned down in 2006, Obama fell back on his inaugural speech:

“As I said in my inaugural address: ‘To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history, but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.’”

The US President also briefly answered a question about the judicial process against businessman Mikhail Khodorkovsky, an oil tycoon serving a sentence seen by many as political.  Russian prosecutors have launched a second set of charges against Khodorkovsky.

“It does seem odd to me that these new charges, which appear to be a repackaging of the old charges, should be surfacing now,” Obama said.

Obama earlier spoke about the need to improve US-Russian relations, and reiterated his administration’s hope to “press the reset button.”  Obama also noted the many issues and interests that the two countries must face jointly, including the economy, defense, terrorism, and the possibility of a nuclear Iran.

The US President also made it clear that he viewed Russia as an equal, a change from earlier administrations.

Barack Obama will visit Russia from June 6th to the 8th.  Ahead of his trip, Russian President Dmitri Medvedev admitted that US-Russian relations had fallen to nearly Cold War levels in recent years, adding that now was a time to come together.

While in Moscow, Obama will meet with Kremlin officials, as well as parliamentary and non-parliamentary opposition leaders.  Obama has invited some of the Kremlin’s fiercest critics, including United Civil Front leader Garry Kasparov and Solidarity chair Boris Nemtsov, to a Tuesday meeting.

—

TRANSCRIPT OF PRESIDENT OBAMA’S INTERVIEW WITH NOVAYA GAZETA

1. Do you agree with the opinion expressed by many Russian and European politicians that the United States is primarily responsible for the economic difficulties that their countries are now living through?

No. We all are experiencing a severe economic crisis that is affecting the lives of many people in countries around the world.  This crisis resulted from a culture of irresponsibility regarding financial matters that took hold over a number of years in the United States, Europe and elsewhere.  I am proud of our efforts to lead by reforming our regulatory and supervisory systems and promoting an era of responsibility, so that the U.S. and global economies will be stable and growth will be sustained. We of course have an obvious interest in developing policies that stimulate economic growth in the United States, but we also believe that economic growth in our country also will nurture economic growth around the world, including in Russia.
In the 21st century, we all -Americans, Russians, and everyone else – have an interest in fostering world economic growth that benefits us all. We need to spend less time thinking about who is to blame and more time working together to do what needs to be done to get all of our economies moving in the right direction.

2. Do you agree that lies and greed – -  lies about the state of markets and greed of their participants — are the main reasons for the current economic crisis?

As I said to Congress in February, our economy did not fall into decline overnight.  Nor did all of our problems begin when the housing market collapsed or the stock market sank.  We have known for decades that our survival depends on finding new sources of energy.  Yet we import more oil today than ever before.  The cost of health care eats up more and more of our savings each year, yet we keep delaying reform.  Our children will compete for jobs in a global economy that too many of our schools do not prepare them for.  And though all these challenges went unsolved, we still managed to spend more money and pile up more debt, both as individuals and through our government, than ever before.

In other words, we have lived through an era where too often, short-term gains were prized over long-term prosperity; where we failed to look beyond the next payment, the next quarter, or the next election.  A surplus became an excuse to transfer wealth to the wealthy instead of an opportunity to invest in our future.  Regulations were gutted for the sake of a quick profit at the expense of a healthy market.  People bought homes they knew they couldn’t afford from banks and lenders who pushed those bad loans anyway.  And all the while, critical debates and difficult decisions were put off for some other time on some other day.

3. Many experts believe that the 21st Century Financial Regulatory Reform you proposed may become the most significant innovation in the U.S. financial system since the era of President Franklin D. Roosevelt.  What do you consider to be the most important element of this reform?  Are we at the doorstep of new transparency of business and finances?

Our regulatory and supervisory reform plans, announced a few weeks ago, are sweeping and important.  The plans include three important components. First, we’re proposing a set of reforms to require regulators to look not only at the safety and soundness of individual institutions, but also — for the first time — at the stability of the financial system as a whole. Second, we’re proposing a new and powerful agency charged with just one job: looking out for ordinary consumers. Third, we’re proposing a series of changes designed to promote free and fair markets by closing gaps and overlaps in our regulatory system — including gaps that exist not just within but between nations. We are called upon to put in place those reforms that allow our best qualities to flourish — while keeping those worst traits in check. We’re called upon to recognize that the free market is the most powerful generative force for our prosperity — but it is not a free license to ignore the consequences of our actions.

4. On November 18, 2005 Senators Obama, Biden and McCain together with other Senators adopted Resolution 232 on the trial, sentence and imprisonment of Mikhail Khodorkovskiy and Platon Lebedev. The Resolution said that “in investigations that present a threat to authorities, Russian courts become instruments of the Kremlin, and cannot be responsible or independent.” Have you been following the new trial of Khodorkovskiy and Lebedev?

I do not know the intimate details of these new proceedings, though my advisors most certainly do. However, without knowing the details, it does seem odd to me that these new charges, which appear to be a repackaging of the old charges, should be surfacing now, years after these two individuals have been in prison and as they become eligible for parole. Nonetheless, I think it is improper for outsiders to interfere in the legal processes of Russia. Instead, I would just affirm my support for President Medvedev’s courageous initiative to strengthen the rule of law in Russia, which of course includes making sure that all those accused of crimes have the right to a fair trial and that the courts are not used for political purposes.

5. “Restarting” the relationship implies cooperating with Russia in those areas where it is possible. Does this mean weaker attention to Russia’s observation of civil rights and liberties, and to persecution against and murders of journalists? Specifically, to [the need to] apprehend and punish those who ordered and committed the murder of journalist Anna Politkovskaya?

Of course not. I seek to reset relations with Russia because I believe that Americans and Russians have many common interests, interests that our governments recently have not pursued as actively as we could have. For instance, I believe that Americans and Russians both would benefit from fewer nuclear weapons in the world, greater control over nuclear materials around the world, a defeat of extremist elements in Afghanistan and Pakistan, an Iran that produces nuclear energy but not nuclear weapons, and a North Korea that refrains from launching missiles and exploding nuclear weapons and instead returns to the negotiating table. I also believe that Americans and Russians have a common interest in the development of rule of rule, the strengthening of democracy, and the protection of human rights. As I said in my inaugural address: “To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history, but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.” I then emphasized in my Cairo speech that “I do have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things:  the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn’t steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose.  These are not just American ideas; they are human rights.” These are ideas embraced by your president and your people. I agree with President Medvedev when he said that “Freedom is better than the absence of freedom.” So, I see no reason why we cannot aspire together to strengthen democracy, human rights, and the rule of law as part of our “reset.”

6. Will you sign the new START treaty if Russia conditions its signing upon non-deployment of the U.S. missile defense system in Central Europe?

In our meeting in London on April 1st, President Medvedev and I issued a joint statement on instructions for our negotiators for this new treaty. These instructions very explicitly did not mention missile defense as a topic of discussion for these negotiations.
At the same time, we understand Russian sensitivities to this issue and have sent several high-level delegations to Moscow over the last several weeks to engage in a serious dialogue about U.S.-Russian cooperation on missile defense.

My government is completing a comprehensive review of all of our missile defense programs, including those in Europe. Given the threats around the world, especially those growing from North Korea and Iran, our goal is to enhance missile defense for the United States and our allies in Europe and elsewhere. As I have said many times, such a system has to work, be cost effective, and must address the real threats to the United States and our allies, not imaginary ones. When discussing our plans for Europe, we first and foremost are seeking to build a missile defense system that protects the United States and Europe from an Iranian ballistic missile armed with a nuclear warhead. We are not building and will not build a system that is aimed to respond to an attack from Russia. Such thinking is simply a legacy of the Cold War.

We have not yet decided how we will configure missile defense in Europe. But my sincere hope is that Russia will be a partner in that project. If we combine our assets on missile defense, the United States, Russia, and our allies will be much safer than if we go it alone. I see a great potential here, and I hope to have a robust discussion with President Medvedev about these possibilities for cooperation on missile defense when I am in Moscow next week.

7. In the course of your presidential campaign, you competed with Hillary Clinton. Does this hinder your joint work now?

Absolutely not. This is the beauty of democracy. Secretary Clinton and I engaged in a hard-fought, very competitive race for the nomination of our party. By the way, without question, these primaries made me a better candidate for the general election against Senator John McCain. But in democracies, once the election is over, then all Americans who care about our country get back to work. It was because of how well I got to know Secretary Clinton during our campaign that I knew she would be such an excellent Secretary of State, and she has served our country with excellence.

Medvedev, who spoke with editor-in-chief Dmitri Muratov, seems intent on cultivating his image as a liberal leader.

The complete interview, below, is republished in English from Kremlin.ru.

–

April 13, 2009,
Published April 15, 2009

Interview with Novaya Gazeta

NOVAYA GAZETA (EDITOR IN CHIEF DMITRY MURATOV): I wanted to start with general issues, but some are more urgent. It might be better to cancel the election in Sochi rather than to imitate it. Imitation is more cynical than abolition. Candidate Lebedev was barred from the election by a court, and candidate Nemtsov is kept away from campaigning.

PRESIDENT OF RUSSIA DMITRY MEDVEDEV: I do not yet know who was expelled and how, but in any case a full-fledged political struggle is taking place in Sochi. It is good that different political forces are participating in it. In my opinion, many municipal elections suffer from monotony, a lack of interesting candidates, and as a result are uninteresting.

It is true that people almost always vote for intelligible politicians rather than popular stars, but the more striking these events are the better it is for our electoral system, for democracy in Russia.

Now regarding the specific circumstances: in every election there will always be candidates who lose, candidates that are taken off the ballot, and this is the case everywhere in the world.

But in general I believe that such public campaigns are good for democracy.

NOVAYA GAZETA: On April 15 you will host the Presidential Civil Society Institutions and Human Rights Council. I was glad to see that the members list includes intelligent and decent people. Alexander Auzan, Alexey Simonov, Svetlana Sorokina, Elena Panfilova, Igor Yurgens, Irina Yasina, and I have not listed them all. Do I understand that today civil society is more important to you then that of “plainclothes men”?

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: You know, civil society is a category that we have not fully absorbed in Russia. Throughout the world civil society is the flip side of the state. The state is not only a political machine, it is also a form of organising life in society, one that is based on state power and relies on the law, while civil society is the human dimension of any state. Though its members are governed by state legislation they often act according to human laws that, incidentally, do not always have a legal form. Still quite recently, many people did not understand the words civil society. A state is more or less clear. But what is civil society? A society of citizens? So we are all citizens of our country. And now there is the understanding that civil society is an integral non-governmental institution in any state. An institution that provides feedback. The organisations of people who do not hold office, but are nevertheless actively involved in the life of their country.

Therefore meetings and contacts between the President and representatives of civil society are indispensable. Let me emphasise: these relations are not easy for any authority, because all members of civil society and representatives of human rights organisations have a huge number of issues to raise with the government and leaders. They have a lot of questions, and these are questions the authorities do not always want to answer. But that is why such contacts must be systematic, including contacts within the framework of the Council you mentioned. I expect that this will be an interesting conversation. It will likely be hard, but therein lies its value.

NOVAYA GAZETA: For a few years now there has been an unspoken contract between state and society (or, more precisely, the majority of society): the state provides a given level of comfort and well-being, and in exchange society remains loyal to the state.

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: You mean “democracy in exchange for prosperity” or, say, “sausages in exchange for freedom”?

NOVAYA GAZETA: Yes. But now, in the absence of prosperity, what do you think a new contract could be? I will not even say the word thaw, but perhaps the defrosting [Alexander Auzan’s term] of society is pertinent? Since neither society nor the state can deal with the crisis alone, they will have to talk.

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: The idea of a social contract is certainly one of the brightest human ideas and has undoubtedly played a very significant role in the development of democratic institutions throughout the world. The origins of Rousseau’s idea are well-known, but if you refer to the modern social contract then I would say that its framework is laid out in our Constitution. The Constitution is a special agreement between on the one hand the state and, on the other, its citizens.

NOVAYA GAZETA: An agreement on what?

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: On how to exercise power in the territory of our state, of our country. In this context, the social contract refers to the partial assignment of authority, which by virtue of natural law belongs to the individual, to the state so that the state guarantees individual’s prosperity, life and liberty. But it seems to me that one should never oppose a stable and prosperous life, and a set of political rights and freedoms. You can not oppose democracy and well-being. On the other hand, it is clear that the inalienable rights and freedoms of the individual and citizen may be in jeopardy if society is unstable, if the elementary needs of individuals are not provided for, if people do not feel secure, if they do not receive their wages, if they are unable to buy basic foodstuffs, if their lives are threatened.

Therefore, I see no contradiction in your question to me. It is obvious that the social contract goes back not only to the well-known theories of the 17th and 18th centuries, but also to our Constitution.

NOVAYA GAZETA: Are you suggesting that you can offer Russia both freedom and prosperity?

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: Yes.

NOVAYA GAZETA: Today the primary function of society is, of course, to supervise public officials, to oversee the benefits and services that the bureaucracy provides for society. How do you think this control can be implemented? The entire country read the declarations of income and assets of your subordinates and those of the Prime Minister.

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: Probably everyone enjoyed reading this?

NOVAYA GAZETA: Yes they did. Of course, it is unclear who will verify the authenticity of the declarations. In a few days a powerful community of “poor” husbands with wealthy wives has emerged in Russia…

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: You know, the problem of supervising public officials and civil servants is one of the fundamental tasks of any state. The state must control its officials – officials who are actually serving the state, and of course there is a wide variety of control mechanisms.

We started working on this a long time ago and I cannot say that we have achieved great success. Although if we’re comparing, say, the situation in the 1990s and that of today, I still believe that today is better – at least control mechanisms are associated with legal proceedings. And as a person with a legal way of thinking, I can say that legal procedures are very important. The role played by the rule of law in society at large, individuals’ legal consciousness, and the degree of the very legal nihilism I have referred to more than once all depend on how these procedures are implemented. Therefore the procedures we have now are sufficient.

Some time ago we changed the law on public service. Incidentally, I began working on this when I was still working in the Presidential Executive Office. We passed a very decent, modern law on the fundamental aspects of public service and laws on the various types of public service, and this work continues: there are many new chapters to this story. Just recently we adopted a package of anti-corruption laws and amendments to legislation on public service, including those governing the declaration of income and a number of other fairly important and useful things.

In my opinion, today the main problem is not the absence of regulations on supervision, but rather their full implementation. This is, of course, the most difficult thing, because when the bureaucracy is told to supervise themselves this, of course, does not make them happy and I understand this. But we need to make sure that these procedures are nevertheless respected, despite the fact that nobody likes to limit oneself, nobody likes to restrict oneself within confining limits. A civilized society differs from a less civilized one precisely because it has learned to do this.

With regards to the income declaration, this is only one of the institutions of control, an important but not exclusive one, of course. It is very good that for the first time in the history of the Russian state (this has never happened before: neither under the Tsar, the Soviet government, nor in the recent history), all senior officials must not simply declare – in a tax declaration, for example – their incomes and those of their immediate families, but also make this information available to the public.

This practice should become a habit and should not cause an allergic reaction.

You can, of course, ask me: does the publication of the declarations mean that we have control over all senior officers and other officials? Of course not. But at least it is the first step in the right direction. If a person declares his or her income each year – and for senior officials this is not just a declaration but, I repeat, the publication of these documents – then at least this person should think about the assets acquired and the funds used to do so.

While introducing the above practice, we should of course avoid demeaning human beings. I believe that our bureaucrats are Russian citizens who perform a very valuable mission.

NOVAYA GAZETA: The same as other citizens of Russia?

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: Exactly the same as all the others.

NOVAYA GAZETA: Just with flashing lights on their cars.

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: Far from all of them. This is a common misconception. We have several million officials and public servants and the number of those entitled to such features is quite small. So both the income declaration and other forms of supervision establish a certain chain of events with the ultimate goal of compiling the history of a given individual.

NOVAYA GAZETA: The credit history of an official?

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: And why not? It is exactly the same person as others. You mentioned wives, for example. Firstly, I believe that any person can determine independently how to create a life for his family. There is nothing wrong with the fact that officials’ wives are engaged in business. The question is whether or not this is transparent, and of course if there is a conflict of interest. If, say, an official is involved in regulating a given sector and his spouse works for a major company in that sector, this is unethical. But if she is involved in any other business there is no problem. And this is the case throughout the world. It is not taboo that officials’ spouses are engaged in business. It is a question of measures and one’s personal culture. And measures such as the publication of income declarations of high-positioned officials and their close relatives should create such a culture.

Maybe not right away.

But I would repeat again that some history has been created, the history of an official and his family history as well.

Incidentally, this can be unpleasant because people do not always want to have others discussing the income of their spouse, but this is part of the public persona of bureaucrats. Each person has a choice. One can stay in business absolutely legally and make money without any publicity, without publishing any such reports, as banking secrecy in Russia, as in any other country, is guaranteed.

Or one may choose another path.

One can become a public servant, an official, but in this case people – especially when thinking about the future and how to structure their careers – must understand that at some point in the future part of their private life must be revealed. This is a conscious choice, but whoever takes it must understand that it is inevitable and it may cause inconvenience to their family.

NOVAYA GAZETA: Were you personally affected by the negative reaction of public officials? Or did they react with understanding to your decision, the decision to publicize the declaration?

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: Well as you know, the office of President releases me from the obligation to listen to the negative reactions of officials.

I took the decision and everyone must execute it.

NOVAYA GAZETA: Mr President, I would like to leave the so-called people’s judgment, or “vox populi” issue where we discuss declarations of income and credit histories of officials, and switch to your favourite subject, the courts and their independence. I want to ask about the second Yukos case. Can you predict what the outcome of this case will be? For most of those interested in the first case, its outcome was, alas, all too predictable. But can we say the same thing this time? I received the following letter: perhaps, for at least some time, Medvedev will simply call the judges, including the judge of the Yukos case and say: you’re independent, you’re independent, let me remind you that you’re independent, independent, independent! Here is a hands-on way of encouraging the renewal of judicial culture …

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: I can assure you that every hands-on management technique comes with important drawbacks. I’m not even talking about the courts here. We just need to try and ensure that the state machine operates with a reasonable degree of consistency. Now, with respect to the court and the specific process. I can answer this very briefly. Maybe for some the outcome of a given case is predictable. This is the freedom, the pleasure of someone who does not have any public duties and is, let us suppose, a free-lance analyst who can say: I think this will happen. And then he can say: see, this is what happened. Or: sorry, I was wrong.

But for a public servant, and even more so for the President, no such freedom exists and they can make no such comment.

For the President, predictability of judicial decisions is illegal, it is a sign that the law is being violated. For all the other unconstrained commentators, this is a personal matter. No legal proceeding, including the one you mentioned, should be predicted by government officials or the President in any manner. This is the way it is and the way it should be.

NOVAYA GAZETA: You have repeated almost exactly the remarkable words of the 18th century Emperor Friedrich (as cited by Merab Mamardashvili). When Friedrich wanted to take the mill away from the miller, the miller told him: “Your Majesty, besides you we have judges in our country…”. So the Emperor left the miller in peace and throughout his residence inscribed the words: “Your Majesty, besides you we have judges in our country…”. The miller was lucky, as apart from to the Emperor there were judges available for him.

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: There are other maxims on this subject. For example, as Hume put it, all political systems exist only so that judges can perform their functions independently.

NOVAYA GAZETA: A brilliant idea …

Before moving on to questions of charity, I would like to ask you something. There have been rumours… Are you thinking about becoming a member of one of the parties? Perhaps even the ruling party?

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: I spoke about this issue recently, at a meeting with United Russia, and said that in our country, we currently have a tradition of a “non-party president”. During a certain historical period, I feel that this is best, because our political system is not yet fully developed. It must develop, and it must become more mature. That does not mean we should simply cross out the idea of a party-aligned president and say that it is not possible in our country. In other countries, people who become presidents are often either members of a party or leaders of political movements. For now, this is not the case in our country. The question is, when will we be ready for it? This is a question of political experience, of political life.

NOVAYA GAZETA: So after some time, reforms need to be made within the electoral system, in order to ensure real party competition?

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: I think that electoral legislation, legislation on elections, legislation on parties, and legislation on non-governmental organizations – all this legislation is sufficiently flexible. In my view, it can and should be changed every so often. That is what happened and continues to happen in other countries. And in this country, this is an entirely normal process. I would act with much greater care in regard to, for example, changes to civil legislation that determines the property status of our citizens, the proprietary rights in our country, contractual institutions, and inheritance laws, because they are fundamental. The Napoleonic Code was adopted 200 years ago, and it is all right, it is still working, despite the fact that it has quite a few anachronisms. But when any kind of changes are made, they should not put into question the fundamental basics of constitutional order.

NOVAYA GAZETA: A few days ago (I am sure you saw this in the blogs) the Mothers of Beslan group got rightly upset. Guardians and parents who survived the tragedy were asked to pay taxes for the education and living expenses of children attending the Koralovo school [a school created by Mikhail Khodorkovsky for orphans and children who, along with their parents, were victims of terrorist acts]. The government is not spending any money on this project, but wants to collect taxes.

And this is not a unique occurrence. Whenever I, as an individual, put part of my money toward the medical expenses of a sick child, I know that parents will have to pay a 13 percent tax, just as they would on their income.

Those who get this money from us, they have barely raked up a sum needed to pay for medical treatment of their child (there are lots of examples) and then, in tears, have to go and pay the tax.

Perhaps it would make sense to change the laws on philanthropy?

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: The laws on philanthropy need improvement. The problem, as usual, is in the details. There are very clear cases of charity, when help is provided for sick children or the elderly. There are less clear cases, when people are tempted to direct money through the appropriate channels to achieve certain business goals.

We must learn (with the help of the law) to separate money that is intended for charity from money that is intended for business.

NOVAYA GAZETA: And we must make it easier for people to do good deeds. For example: you see a picture of a sick child in a newspaper, with the phone number of a mobile telephone operator; you dial it, and your account is credited. The accessibility of philanthropy is absolute. But the telephone companies take an enormous cut for this service, and so it loses its purpose.

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: That is a good idea. Everything must be done very quickly, and the accessibility of alms-deed must be equal for the rich and for the poor.

Philanthropy is important on both a large scale (in order to stimulate it, we have passed a law on creating targeted capital foundations) and on a small scale which, by the way, is no less valuable. I have always given this example: for some reason, we may feel ashamed to take 100 roubles out of our pockets to send them to a foundation that helps sick children or supports the university where we studied. Why? Because we have doubts. What is 100 roubles? They’ll think we are mocking them. But for some reason, in other countries, there is no shame in sending a dollar, just one, to your university or to the city council of your home town, because people feel that it is perfectly normal to do so, and that they must somehow help important social initiatives. I also think that it is right to do good deeds regardless of one’s income, donating any sum of money.

By the way, we already have an undertaking of this sort. Sberbank launched an interesting project. They began to issue special bank cards. If you get this kind of card, you agree in advance that a small percent of each of your expenses or purchases will go to charity [this project was undertaken jointly by Sberbank and the Chulpan Khamatova’s “Give Life” Foundation].

NOVAYA GAZETA: Social initiatives are important things, and oftentimes, they do not require large amounts of spending. Along with the Committee of Soliders’ Mothers and a couple of military enlistment offices, we held an experiment: we gave mobile phones to conscripts, so that if anything happened, they could call the public prosecutor’s office, or their mothers or girlfriends. It was reported to us that cases of hazing decreased sharply. For example, they can have a “Soldier” price plan in the beginning, and a “Demobee” price plan by the end of their service…

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: That is a good idea. Crimes committed in the armed forces are dangerous, first and foremost, because of their latency, because only an insignificant percent reaches the military judges and investigators, and even less make it to the court. Whereas modern means of communication do help.

NOVAYA GAZETA: Not so long ago, we printed an article about the town of Maisky. Perhaps you heard this story, it is related to you. In the town of Maisky in Kabardino-Balkar Republic, there was a rumour that Medvedev will visit soon, because Medvedev’s grandmother lives somewhere in the town. And what did the authorities do, when they could not find the grandmother? Just in case, all of the roads in Maisky were paved. Tonnes of trash were taken out, the town square was paved, and street lamps were installed. The people were happy. I think that if we spread rumours about the grandmothers of Medvedev, Surkov, and members of the government in various towns, then perhaps the fear will cause local authorities to get active.

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: This is not a bad method… I know what you are talking about. If I remember correctly, long ago, my grandfather worked as a secretary for the district [communist] party committee in Kabardino-Balkar Republic, right around Maisky. Although, that was long ago, over 60 years now, but nevertheless. Perhaps that is how this rumour got started…

NOVAYA GAZETA: The internet is one of the few remaining public platforms for discussion. Do you think about the fact that civil servants constantly try to introduce control over the Web?

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: I do not think that is the case. The internet is not merely one of many platforms for discussions; in my view, it is the best discussion platform, not just in our country, but overall, because I cannot think of anything else that is more socially significant, or more actively reaching every household, while simultaneously creating opportunities for direct communication, than the internet.

I have stated my position on the internet many times, and I can say it again: we must create normal conditions for the development of the Web. As a person who is rather deeply immersed in the internet and uses it quite actively every day, I feel that we must have a normal legal foundation for its development in our country – a legal foundation, and an organisational one. Because without organisational support, as I have said recently, the internet in our country will not develop.

Not long ago, I was present at the launch of WiMAX technology [a telecommunication technology for many devices, ranging from computers to mobile phones, ensuring high-speed access to the Web of IEEE 802.16 standard] in Armenia and I was simply jealous of our Armenian friends, because they have a small country, and they covered everything at once – absolutely everything. You can drive through the territory in a car and watch television: thanks to the internet, the signal is delivered at high speed.

We have a different situation. We have an enormous country, and even providing internet to schools required enormous financial resources, great organisational resources, and special government attention. I worked on this personally. It is wonderful that we were nevertheless able to bring internet to all schools, and this way, it has begun to develop in smaller towns and villages which are far from out country’s centre.

As for legal regulation of the internet, it must be reasonable. We do not need to be ahead of everyone in the world, we must think about how to create a legal framework that, on the one hand, will allow the internet to develop, and on the other hand, will block crimes that can be committed using internet technologies. But under no circumstances should the internet be regarded as some sort of potentially dangerous criminal medium in regard to others. The internet is not an absolute evil.

NOVAYA GAZETA: Our newspaper has quoted the words of the wonderful writer and analyst Dmitry Oreshkin: in the USSR, they could not create a computer, because even photocopiers were under the control of the KGB, so they would certainly not allow anyone to have a personal data processing device. But in order to modernise the country, we need a particular, free environment. Today you talked about elections, about control over bureaucracy, about the internet. Does this mean that President Medvedev is going to rehabilitate democracy in Russia?

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: You know, I think that democracy as such does not need any kind of rehabilitation. Democracy is both historical and at the same time, supranational. That is why democracy does not require rehabilitation anywhere. There is another issue: at a certain point, the highly difficult political and economic processes of the 1990s became associated with the arrival of the key democratic institutions in our country for many of our fellow citizens, and for them, this was a very difficult time. That is what left a mark on the perception of the term itself, but that is more a matter of personal experience, rather than an attitude toward democracy overall. That is why I do not think that we need to rehabilitate democracy. Democracy was, is, and will be.

NOVAYA GAZETA: A few days ago, I watched Andrei Khrzhanovsky’s film about Joseph Brodsky, and it contained his wonderful phrase: “It is always much easier to organise inhumanity in our country than anything else.” Inhumanity is, indeed, always easier, whereas justice and freedom are always much more difficult. I wish you the best of luck on your difficult path.

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: Thank you. I cannot disagree with this; it truly is more difficult…

“I didn’t speak of this earlier, but now I am forced to say it,” he said. “I am sick and tired of claims that the case is solved and will go to court. The case can’t be solved, when the person who ordered [the murder] isn’t identified, and the killer isn’t caught.”

Politkovskaya was murdered in a contract-style killing outside of her Mosow apartment building in October 2006. Since then, the investigation into her murder has slowly moved forward, without definitive results.

Muratov does not see anything wrong with the release of four of nine suspects connected in the case. The problem, in his opinion, are the repeated official statements that portend that the matter has been resolved, when in fact the investigation remains ambiguous.

Muratov welcomed a new development in the case of Yury Shchekochikhin, another journalist who died under mysterious circumstances in 2003. The case has just recent been reclassified as a murder investigation.

Earlier this week, Politkovskaya’s investigative committee made the decision to free another suspect, Shamil Buraev. They have pledged to complete their preliminary investigation by July 20th.

The area’s two largest newspaper distributors, Lenoblpechat and Nevoblpechat, have refused to carry the publication, according to a statement from the paper’s editors. The distributors blame the move on “a shortage of commercial interest.” However, local readers have told editors that the newspaper is being whisked off the shelves, and is always difficult to find at kiosks.

Meanwhile, one of the paper’s journalists has been fined 500 rubles (€13.91 or $20.46) for his work on the “Dissenters’ Marches,” according to Fontanka.ru. The reporter was charged with disobeying orders from authorities.

Novaya Gazeta is far from the first local publication to face pressure from the district. Some experts believe that the move is the latest tactic used by the governor of the Leningrad Oblast, Valery Serdyukov, in an attempt to create an informational blockade of mass-media not loyal to the administration.

Another local Novaya Gazeta edition in the city of Samara stopped publication in late 2007, under even harsher force from above. The paper’s computers were repeatedly confiscated, reporters were detained near-daily, and a criminal investigation was launched against the editor-in-chief, Sergei Kurt-Adzhiev. Partner organizations, such as the paper’s printing house, were directly visited by militsiya officers and threatened.

Novaya Gazeta’s troubles coincide with a report by the Glasnost Defense Foundation, which discusses the difficulties and dangers facing journalists and the media in today’s Russia.

However, the government allowing the march does not mean allowing the marchers to attend it or the citizens of Samara to learn about it. The arrests, detentions, confiscations, and harassment continue unabated. Yesterday, the editor of the Samara edition of Novaya Gazeta, Sergei Kurt-Adzhiyev, his daughter Anastasia, and several other journalists were detained. Anyone producing or distributing our materials is vulnerable to harassment. Anastasia Kurt-Adzhiyev was distributing flyers promoting the rally at the time she was detained. She and rally organizer Yuri Chervinchuk were picked up, according to police, because they might have had grenades in their bags. And jet fighters in their pockets, no doubt. We reiterate that every one of our Marches of Dissent have been entirely peaceful on the part of the marchers. All the violence has been on the police side of the lines.

Computers at Novaya Gazeta have been confiscated to prevent the release of the publication, which dared to mention that an opposition rally was to take place in the city. (The official pretext was a search for pirated software!) Many other activists have been detained. The representatives of Lyudmila Alekseeva of the Moscow Helsinki Foundation human rights group were arrested upon their arrival at the Samara train station, having been advised twice that there would be in trouble if they continued their journey. Another was suddenly called up to the army and taken away. One student activist was expelled from university on the grounds — and so stated — for his participation in Other Russia.To show up in Samara under these circumstances takes tremendous courage. Our activists continue to labor under great pressure and we salute them and thank them. Radio Echo in Samara has helped us a great deal and so far the local AVTO Radio has accepted our commercial. [ Update: AVTO, Radio Echo, and a local TV station have now all refused to run our commercials inviting people to attend the march. A march approved by the city government! ]

The organization Reporters Without Borders released a statement on the situation in Samara. An excerpt:

“We are outraged to see that even important international meetings do not prevent the political authorities from harassing leaders of the Other Russia coalition who are organising a protest march (although it has been authorised) and the journalists who have interviewed them,” the press freedom organisation said. “This is a flagrant violation of human rights and civil liberties, and we urge all human rights activists to be especially vigilant in the coming months, which will be decisive for Russia’s future.”

Reporters Without Borders added: “The record of the last seven years confirms our conviction that Vladimir Putin is an enemy of press freedom. It is our duty to appeal for solidarity with Russian human rights activists and journalists so that they do not feel isolated. Their struggle must find support outside the country, starting with the European Union.”

The toll of the past week in the city of Samara alone is very worrying. Three journalists working for the daily Kommersant and REN-TV were arrested on 10 May while interviewing Mikhail Gagan outside his apartment building. Gagan is one of the organisers of the “Dissenters’ March” which Garry Kasparov’s Other Russia and other anti-Kremlin groups plan to hold in Samara on 18 May as the summit is taking place there.

The Putin goverment must believe the visiting leaders and journalists in Samara are fools. Do they really believe officially permitting the march while jailing and intimidating the marchers will convince them that Russia is a respectful democracy? It’s like trying to paint over a big hole in the wall. The Kremlin wants to be able to say, “Look how few protestors showed up. Everyone here is happy!” But in reality they have already exposed their authoritarian ways. They learned on April 14 and 15 that beating the protestors generated bad publicity, too much of which could lead to a rift with the West and the endangerment of all that looted money they have abroad. So now, with the world watching more closely, they are trying methods that are harder to photograph. It is still nothing more and nothing less than the broad usage of police and other security forces for political repression.