Olga Shorina, press secretary of the Solidarity opposition movement, said on Wednesday that “the relevant paperwork is currently being completed.”

Mokhnatkin was greeted at the gates of Torzhka’s Penal Colony No. 4 by civil and political activists and supporters.

The prisoner was arrested after stepping in to defend an elderly woman from a police officer who was “dragging her towards a bus” during one of the most notoriously brutal Strategy 31 crackdowns in the history of that protest movement. Mokhnatkin was arrested and sentenced to 2.5 years confinement for “using force against a government representative.”

He was among 37 political prisoners on a list given by opposition leaders to the president to pardon a month earlier in the wake of massive protests.

President Medvedev signed Mokhnatkin’s pardon on April 23 – almost two years after he was sentenced.

As Mokhnatkin said at the time he was charged, he was not taking part in the Strategy 31 rally, but simply happened to be walking by and felt the need to come to the defense of the 70-year-old woman being mistreated by the police officer.

On Novopushkinsky Square, two activists holding an ongoing anti-governmental picket dubbed “Putin Will Be Executed” were arrested for supposedly “violating public order by holding either a meeting, rally, demonstration, march or picket,” an offense punishable by a fine from 500 to 2000 rubles (16 to 65 USD).

However, according to detained oppositionist Stanislav Posdnyakov, the pair had documents showing that the city had granted them permission to hold a picket at that time and place with up to ten participants. They plan to file suit against the officers involved.

Police had not detained any members of a previous picket under the same campaign a day before. A third action is planned for Thursday.

Another eleven activists were arrested the same day in front of Moscow’s Olympic stadium, where the band DDT was set to play a concert later in the evening.

According to Solidarity co-leader Nadezhda Mityushkina, the arrestees had been passing out leaflets protesting the unfairness of upcoming parliamentary elections on December 4 and instructing voters on how to ruin their ballots in protest. The goal of the campaign, which the activists are calling “Vote Against Them All,” is to have seven percent of voters cast their ballots against all candidates, thus passing the threshold needed by political parties to hold seats in the State Duma.

Mityushkina said that the arresting officers would not explain on what basis the activists were being detained. She personally was released after warning that she planned to file a complaint against them.

Among the activists who were not so lucky, all hailing from Solidarity, were Elena Bukvareva, Mark Galperin, Dmitry Monakhov, Artem Bystrov, Galina Shashanova and others. The group was brought to a police station and also charged with supposedly violating public order.

The arrests come on the heels of a new set of poll numbers for Prime Minister Vladimir Putin’s United Russia party showing a nine-point drop in support in just one week, from 60 percent to 51 percent. In some regions, such as Moscow and St. Petersburg, their numbers are even lower (29 and 31 percent, respectively). Among other questionable measures being taken to boost support for the reigning party is a racy television commercial calling for young people to “do it together” in voting booths on December 4.

According to Solidarity representative Denis Bilunov, members of the movement used the congress to implement changes to the makeup of the organization and to pass resolutions on certain policies.

In particular, the movement decided to officially support a campaign begun by human rights and civil activists dubbed “For Russia Without United Russia,” referring to Prime Minister Vladimir Putin’s political party. Decisions were also made to support free preschool education and oppose the import of nuclear waste onto Russian territory.

In his address, Solidarity co-leader Boris Nemtsov said that protests should become the number one aim of the organization. Since the most successful large-scale events are held in St. Petersburg and Moscow under the Strategy 31 campaign in defense of free assembly, Solidarity absolutely must participate in these demonstrations, he said.

Fellow co-leader Garry Kasparov warned the congress that Russia wasn’t going to see anything like Ukraine’s Orange Revolution, which was brought on by reports of fraud in that country’s November 2004 presidential election. Instead, he argued that oppositionists should figure on a scenario like the ones currently rocking the Arab world. “10-20-30-50 thousand people in the streets of Moscow – that’s a solution to the problem,” Kasparov said, adding that the organization needs to show that liberal values have never been part of the basis of Russian state policy.

“The established regime is never going to give up power as a result of elections,” he insisted.

Solidarity was established at the end of 2008 as a coalition of Russian democratic forces that opposed the ruling regime. From the very beginning, Solidarity assigned itself the task of uniting disparate groups of Russian democrats to form a distinct alternative for the future development of Russia and to change the political regime in the country.

One of Yashin’s fellow oppositionists from the Solidarity movement, Mikhail Maglov, was in the courtroom when the verdict was read. He told Kasparov.ru that Judge Svetlana Ukhnaleva saw no reason not to believe police officers’ testimony that Yashin violated the law.

At the same time, said Maglov, the judge chose to ignore the testimony of Police Sergeant Artem Charukhin, who told the court last week that he had falsified a police report about Yashin. She chose to ignore it because “he did not feel well in court and his testimony contradicts other evidence,” Maglov said. The judge did accept his police report – the same one Charukhin said he falsified, before later recanting – as legitimate evidence, since “it was drafted directly after [Yashin’s] detention and corresponds with other evidence,” said Maglov.

The judge did not take into account evidence from witnesses for the defense, alleging bias, and also ignored video evidence showing that Yashin did not resist police when he was detained – the charge he was convicted of. According to Maglov, the judge said the video was dark since it was filmed at night and that it was impossible to see what was going on.

Maglov told Kasparov.ru that Yashin planned to appeal the decision in Moscow City Court and also file a complaint with the European Court of Human Rights.

On his blog, Yashin described the court session on Thursday that preceded Friday’s verdict as Kafkaesque: “It has already become banal to compare Russian courts with Kafka’s The Trial. But it’s hard to pick a different comparison – it was a disgraceful tragicomedy with elements of blatant insanity and mockery of common sense.” His entire account of the trial’s final hearing can be read in Russian here.

Awkwardly, after Friday’s verdict was announced, Sergeant Charukhin was found in a police car outside the court, having apparentlk slept through the entire reading (click here for video).

The oppositionist’s five-day sentence of administrative arrest ended on Wednesday evening. He had been arrested together with Boris Nemtsov, co-leader of the Solidarity movement, when the two attempted to cross over to an unsanctioned “Strategy 31” rally that neighbored a separate, sanctioned one. In court, police witnesses testified that the two were detained when they refused a police order to stop swearing. The court refused to admit video and other evidence from the defense contradicting the claims.

Yashin said he is trying to prove that his arrest was illegal. “We’re going to try to appeal all of this. The problem is that it’s the holidays right now and this is difficult to do. We’re going to appeal, but we understand that the sentences have nothing to do with the law. The statements by police officers were falsified. The court decisions have nothing to do with the law,” he said.

In an interview with Ekho Moskvy radio, Yashin accused the court of “boorishness” and of writing their decisions in advance.

Conditions in the prison, Yashin said, were about what one would expect. “An ordinary cell – bunk beds, crummy walls. Cockroaches climbing on the walls. A hole in the floor instead of a toilet. But we didn’t expect to be in a health spa,” he said.

The oppositionist intends to continue participating in protests, particularly the ongoing series of solitary pickets calling for the release of his fellow “convicts.”

Meanwhile, Boris Nemtsov continues to sit out his 15-day jail sentence. Konstantin Kosyakin, one of the organizers of the unsanctioned Strategy 31 event, was detained at the metro exit before even reaching the rally and sentenced to 10 days in jail. The second organizer, Other Russia party leader Eduard Limonov, was arrested even earlier – outside his home on his way to the rally – and convicted that evening of petty hooliganism. His bodyguard, Kirill Manulin, was arrested at the same time and sentenced to 8 days in jail because he “used profanity” during Limonov’s arrest.

Boris Nemtsov, co-leader of the Solidarity opposition movement, and Eduard Limonov, head of the banned National Bolshevik party and the Other Russia party, were both sentenced to 15 days in jail – Nemtsov for insubordination to the police and Limonov for hooliganism. Left Front coordinator Konstantin Kosyakin received a 10-day sentence for insubordination to the police and Solidarity member Ilya Yashin was sentenced to 5 days in jail, presumably for the same offense.

In the cases of Kosyakin, Nemtsov, and Yashin, a Moscow court refused to admit testimony from 13 witnesses who asserted that the police had acted unlawfully during the rally.

According to Other Russia party member Andrei Gorin, Limonov had been arrested directly outside of his home on his way to the rally. He was sentenced that very evening.

The nationwide rallies were held as part of the Russian opposition’s ongoing Strategy 31 campaign, which is dedicated to the defense of the 31st article of the Russian constitution, guaranteeing the freedom to peacefully hold gatherings, rallies, demonstrations, marches and pickets.

In Moscow, organizers held two separate rallies, both at 6 pm on Triumfalnaya Square. Lyudmila Alexeyeva, a former Soviet dissident and highly regarded rights activist, received approval from the city to hold one of the rallies. Limonov and Kosyakin organized the second, unsanctioned rally.

As Gazeta.ru reports, the police presence at Triumfalnaya Square that night was strong even compared to previous Strategy 31 events.

“More than one thousand people have gathered at the sanctioned rally,” the correspondent reported. “Police are inspecting everyone very closely; there are a thousand of them as well… Several hundred members of the Other Russia coalition are gathered near the metro.”

An estimated 1500 ralliers came out to Triumfalnaya Square in total.

Moscow city police had cordoned off the square earlier in the day, particularly around the sidewalk between the square and the Tchaikovsky Concert Hall, where participants of unsanctioned Strategy 31 rallies usually gather. Anyone who attempted to join that rally from the neighboring Mayakovsky metro station was detained directly at the exit.

Other Russia member Sergei Aksenov was detained after announcing over a megaphone that Limonov had been arrested.

According to Kasparov.ru, OMON riot police periodically squeezed together the participants on Alexeyeva’s side of the square – a tactic commonly used by police during Strategy 31 rallies that often makes it difficult for those present to move or even breathe.

Following up from last year, Alexeyeva came to the rally dressed as a festive snowmaiden. Other oppositionists dressed up as well: environmental activist Yevgenia Chirikova came in a Little Red Riding Hood costume. Rights activist Lev Ponomarev said he wanted to dress as Father Christmas, but couldn’t get ahold of a suitable cap.

After the sanctioned rally had officially ended, some participants – including Nemtsov and Yashin – attempted to cross over to the unsanctioned rally and were promptly arrested. According to Interfax, about 70 people were detained on Triumfalnaya Square in total.

Prior to the rallies, Moscow Mayor Sergei Sobyanin had warned that the city would not allow large, unsanctioned events to be held on New Year’s Eve, and that “those who plan to violate the law” could find themselves face-to-face with some unpleasant consequences.

Viktor Biryukov, head of public relations for the Moscow city police, said that they would not allow provocateurs and participants of any possible unsanctioned rallies to ruin New Year’s Eve night for people in the city.

In St. Petersburg, police arrested about 60 people in one of two Strategy 31 rallies held in the city that night. City authorities had refused to grant sanction to either rally.

As Fontanka.ru reports, all the arrests occurred at Gostiny Dvor, where between 100 and 300 people had gathered to rally. Nine girls were detained after unfurling a poster reading “freedom is more important than Olivier salad.”

No arrests were made at the second rally, which had about 100 participants from the United Civil Front, Solidarity, Yabloko, and other opposition groups. Many ralliers wore shirts picturing Mikhail Khodorkovsky, a former oil oligarch who was convicted for a second time last week. He will now continue to sit in prison until 2017. The conviction is widely seen as the personal vendetta of Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin.

Photographs of the Moscow rallies can be found by clicking here and here.

In contrast, Russia’s “non-systemic” opposition consists of an enormous number of political movements, organizations, and coalitions that have either been denied registration and are thus unable to participate in elections, or who don’t bother trying since they know they won’t be allowed to obtain it. Despite representing an extremely wide variety of viewpoints, what all of these groups have in common is that they are true alternatives to the current ruling regime.

In September, a group of four prominent opposition leaders announced the formation of a new coalitional party called “For Russia Without Tyranny or Corruption.” Coalition leaders said they intend to attempt to register the party and participate in upcoming parliamentary and presidential elections. Their party, though coalitional, would not include as wide a variety of opposition viewpoints as, for example, the Other Russia.

One large question that remains about the future of the new coalition is whether or not Solidarity – one of the most prominent non-systemic opposition movements in Russia today – will join it. In this recent op-ed, United Civil Front leader and Solidarity co-leader Garry Kasparov explains why doing so could easily create more problems than it would solve.

A Political Mess: It’s not yet time to create an ideologically narrow coalition
By Garry Kasparov
October 8, 2010
Kasparov.ru

The news about the creation of a new liberal coalition has evoked an extremely positive, if not enthusiastic, response from supporters of the liberal political wing of our country. Liberal-minded journalists are describing its prospects in the most opalescent tones. And there’s a perfectly rational explanation for such euphoria.

The idea of a union of democratic forces is a panacea for all the troubles and misfortunes that our country encounters, which are not new and trace back from the time of the endless history of the unification of the SPS [Union of Right Forces – ed.] and Yabloko. Naturally, as control of the regime was tightened under Putin, discussions about unifying the opposition gained strength. And the common argument that asks how you could trust people to run the country who can’t even agree amongst themselves is as popular as ever among both supporters of the opposition and its opponents. For some reason, most of these discussions refer to the liberal opposition, although discord among the left and national-patriotic opposition forces is no less serious.

The desire of people who generally take no part in politics to speak out with dissatisfaction about the current state of affairs by simply dropping a ballot into a ballot box is perfectly clear. However, the elimination of the choice to vote “against everyone” forces the voter to search for an alternative that’s acceptable to him from the vegetarian political menu proposed by the Kremlin. Therefore, there are periodically public demands for the Russian political kitchen to come up with new ingredients. And the Kremlin chefs, reliable as ever, continue to keep their not particularly demanding clientele on a Lenten fast.

Not long ago, the New Times magazine published an article about the pre-electoral situation in Venezuela. The entire pathos of the article consisted of the idea that the country’s opposition committed a grave error several years ago by boycotting the elections, but now they’ve come to their senses and intend to participate – a type of reproach of Russian oppositionists. But all of this ignores the fact that the opposition in Venezuela is not banned, is officially registered, and can participate in elections, and in Russia, it can’t. As a matter of fact, the apparent success of the opposition in those elections relied on the unification of the most varied political forces, which set aside their differences on social and economic issues for the sake of creating a united anti-Chavez front.

In our Russian reality, playing on the feelings of people who are striving to unite to confront the regime is leading to the creation of a dangerous mythology that enables not the weakening, but, on the contrary, the strengthening of the government.

These concepts become mixed up when, in discussing the current coalition of these four well-known democratic politicians, many liberal-minded people breathe a sigh of relief – this time it’s without Limonov or the leftists. They forget that the idea of various political forces taking cooperative action against the regime, which the United Civil Front proposed be the fundamental activity of the Other Russia, has already become mainstream and no longer surprises anyone. Today, cooperation between coalitions in protests is the main key to the successes of large opposition rallies. In Kaliningrad, the largest such event of the past several years was held under banners of all the colors of the ideological spectrum. It is also worth noting that the leadership of the Communist party – the main party of the systemic opposition – tries with all its might to prevent the efforts of various ideological groups in organizing protests from coming together.

The question of to what extend this kind of cooperation can extend to larger political projects – such as presidential elections – remains, like before, unanswered. It is obvious that breaking apart the regime, or at least forcing it to consider people’s opinions, is only possible by uniting the widest possible ideological spectrum. Alexei Kondaurov and Andrei Piontkovsky recently wrote an excellent article on this point. But unfortunately, many people don’t realize that, for the time being, many basic issues could be resolved if completely different political forces came together. There are examples of successfully realized projects like this in the histories of countries that have stood in opposition to authoritarian and totalitarian regimes. It suffices to remember Chile at the end of the ’80s, when there was unification all across the political spectrum in order to achieve victory in the referendum and bring free elections back to the country. Democratic Russia in 1990-91 was just as wide a coalition, albeit lacking such strikingly outspoken political groups.

In conditions where independent organizations are factually banned from participating in elections, a purely ideological union – even one including some competitors, but ones that are from one part of the spectrum of groups – is a thing in itself.

It was already clear in 2007 that official participation in political life in Russia was only possible with the Kremlin’s consent, and only with the fulfillment of corresponding conditions – taking the oath of fealty. The failure to register [former State Duma Deputy Vladimir] Ryzhkov and [former Russian Prime Minister Mikhail] Kasyanov’s party clearly defined the direction that political life in Russia develops. It’s important to note that this was not a matter of extremist organizations, but of people who themselves came from within the current government. Despite how critical these people are, only in the inflamed imaginations of Kremlin propagandists could they be referred to as radicals or extremists. Therefore, the numerous failures of [National Bolshevik leader Eduard] Limonov’s party are not even worth discussing. The recent attempt to register the Russian United Workers Front, effortlessly rejected by the Justice Ministry, also shows that the Kremlin has not allowed any changes to occur. But projects like this that create unions, which have recently been created among liberals, leftists, and the national-patriots, are undoubtedly a positive force.

From a historical perspective, these sorts of unions could become the nucleus of a future political system. And in this sense, the emergence of Solidarity in 2008 was a gigantic step forward, because, for the first time, a liberal-minded organization that had no connections to the Kremlin was allowed to be formed. The role of such organizations, both right and left, could most of all come down to developing policy positions for the future, working with citizens of the country, educating, constantly applying pressure on the government, and holding street rallies – that is to say, the role is of a tactical nature, not a strategic one. For today’s opposition, which is deprived of the opportunity to assert influence through the mass media and thus fully participate in political life, the possibilities for strategic planning are extremely limited.

All the euphoria surrounding the ongoing process of creating this coalition has the quality of being distracted from reality.

The task of forming a political party seems at least strange, since its fate is probably clear to everyone. An opposition organization cannot obtain any kind of registration under current conditions. When they are denied registration and everything becomes clear to everyone, the discussions that will be repeated like mantras will be reminiscent of the folktale of the white bull, endlessly walking in circles. Or an unreasonably drawn-out speech before a skeptical audience (whether abroad or at home) that needs to hear yet another explanation of the antidemocratic essence of the current regime.

Maybe some members of the coalition are hoping for a drastic change in the situation and the emergence of the “Medvedev majority,” where this structure has a place. But nobody talks to us about this openly. What they say is that, once again, we have to take the path of collecting signatures and submitting documents to the Justice Ministry. Thus, regardless of the pointlessness of this procedure, they are trying to convince us to once again play by the existing rules. If this idea is doomed, then it is entirely unclear what we are proving and to whom. And if somebody thinks that registration is possible, then I’d like to hear where such optimism came from.

A question: what is considered to be a change in the situation? That the Kremlin suddenly considers it necessary to put a liberal force in its pocket, or is, after all, going forward with legislative liberalization? A change in the situation does not signify mercy on the part of the Kremlin, but its consent to change the rules. And that is a fundamental difference. The situation is going to change when the country operates under normal laws, and not when they let somebody [register – ed.] and not somebody else. There is also a purely practical question.

A petition, if it’s not just something to show off – which people who want to register usually resort to – is a distraction of the organizers’ energy.

After [Solidarity co-founder Boris] Nemtsov signed the agreement, Solidarity began to participate in coalition projects, and the main, if not only project of the coalition is to create a party structure. In accordance with the regulations put in place by the Justice Ministry, the founding congress of the new party should happen in December. This means that Solidarity will drag out practically in full force from the congress on December 11 to the congress on December 14. At the same time, the decision hasn’t been made within Solidarity to transform the movement into a party. Respected members of the organization such as [Vladimir] Bukovsky and Piontkovsky are categorically against it. Many of those who did not speak out against such a transformation have always insisted that the formation of plans for a party should not involve the necessary collection of signatures. Solidarity’s planned congress should resolve these issues, and it’s obvious that if the decision is made to launch plans for a party, it won’t be required for those who don’t plan on joining the party structure. Solidarity’s format as a social movement will be preserved. That position remains unchanged.

But today’s story with the coalition, which began long before the congress, puts our organization in a strange position. This kind of divided organization strikes me as extremely dangerous. The idea of creating a party through a coalition seemed to me from the very beginning as hopeless and a threat to the existence of Solidarity as the main opposition force in the liberal wing. It’s interesting that another idea – the advancement of a single candidate for president from among the liberal forces – had no problem being absorbed into party rhetoric.

Although, it is precisely this idea that has a practical basis. It is obvious that it is the president who holds power in the country, and not the parliament – which, as we know, is not a place for discussion. It is also obvious that a candidate from the non-systemic opposition will not obtain registration. But this kind of idea is more understandable, and opens an opportunity to negotiate with different opposition ideological associations, in order to take in a larger number of people. I’ll return again to the article by Kondaurov and Piontkovsky: They propose holding a general democratic congress and have a good terminological description of how “general democratic” today does not indicate ideological consistency, but the attitude towards procedures of choosing government. Therefore, people other than those with liberal ideological views would be able to take part in such a congress.

Recognizing that the future of Solidarity as an independent organization is at stake, I in no way want to oppose those in the makeup of the coalition who plan to create a party. But, that said, I have no desire to become a part of this project in the form that it is being presented to us. Right now it is extremely important to continue cooperating with all opposition forces in a political field that is independent from the Kremlin. This is the position that the United Civil Front will continue to adhere to.

Translation by theotherrussia.org.

Gennady Gudkov, State Duma Deputy from A Just Russia

In conditions where there’s hydrochloric acid in the pool, it’s going to be difficult to win, considering that our opponent is swimming with paddles in clean water, and we’re in a pool of hydrochloric acid. With the kind of administrative and bureaucratic support that United Russia has, it’s going to be difficult to compete with the party in power. The elections are very dirty – dirtier than in March. In Chelyabinsk, for example, federal employees are being forced to vote in several different areas. We’ve been informed about this.

We’re counting on victory in the municipal elections of a number of outer-Moscow cities and on good results in several regions. If the elections were even a tad bit honest, United Russia would have joined the opposition long ago.

Sergei Mitrokhin, Yabloko Party Leader

It’s difficult to make predictions in our electoral process. I think there’s going to be ballot-stuffing in United Russia’s favor everywhere. How many will be stuffed, nobody knows. If it’s too few, then the governors, mayors, and regional administrative leaders will be risking their posts.

During the March campaign, we had good results in Tula in the Tverskaya region. There’s a positive trend, but there are no grounds at all to say that the elections will be honest. There’s going to be massive absentee voting in Chelyabinsk.

Boris Nadezhdin, Political Council Member of Right Cause

In the places where our tickets had good chances, they were removed [from the ballots]. This happened, for example, in Kazan and Kostroma. We have tickets left in Magadan and Chelyabinsk; I’m counting more on Chelyabinsk. Because first of all, a very scandalous campaign is going on in Chelyabinsk, and secondly, we are participating alongside Yabloko, and that means the chances of either party winning decrease considerably.

Andrei Andreyev, State Duma Deputy from the Communist Party

Currently I’m in Magadan, working on the elections. The electoral campaign is extraordinarily dirty and cynical. Magadan television, and the channel MTK in particular, is heaping utter garbage onto the three parliamentary parties besides United Russia.

Ilya Yashin, Solidarity Bureau Member

It wouldn’t be right to talk about the chances of the candidates, since this country has long since ceased to have elections, and instead there’s an appointment process reminiscent of elections only in appearance.

Candidates from the non-systemic opposition can participate in elections in order to hurt the government’s reputation, but they can only achieve success in the case that the system malfunctions – as happened, for example, in Tver and several other regions.

Yevgeny Shevchenko, Representative of the Patriots of Russia:

We see the chances of our regional branches in participation in the elections positively, since they accomplished very good work. However, the news from the regions gives some cause for alarm. We are cautious about the fact that party tickets were taken off the ballots for unsubstantiated reasons. We have fewer complaints than in previous years. Clearly, the regional authorities have finally listened to the president and have begun to create the conditions for competition in the regions, but there is lawlessness in the municipal elections in a whole swath of regions.

Sergei Ivanov, State Duma Deputy from the LDPR:

I see the chances for the LDPR in the elections as very good. We’ve been up against the administration’s resources since 1989, and we always find our voters.

Aleksandr Khitshteyn, State Duma Deputy from United Russia:

I can only say what work I do, and I’m in charge of elections in Samara. I’m convinced that United Russia candidates will get the majority of the mandates in city duma elections. As far as the elections for mayor are concerned, I’m convinced that Dmitri Azarov will win – what’s more, in the first round. The campaign has been sufficiently calm. Naturally, what’s unpleasant is the use of administrative resources by the current mayor, Victor Tarkhov.

The coalition, called For Russia Without Tyranny or Corruption, was created last month by a number of former high-ranking government figures who have since joined the democratic opposition. During a meeting on Sunday of Solidarity’s Moscow branch, Kasparov said that he welcomes any union or negotiations between democratic movements in the country. However, he stipulated, there are some questions that need to be addressed.

One issue, said Kasparov, is whether or not the main goal of the For Russia Without Tyranny or Corruption is indeed to obtain federal registration as a political party with the Russian Ministry of Justice. In Kasparov’s opinion, such an effort would be doomed to fail, and would therefore be pointless.

Political parties must be federally registered in order to participate in local or federal elections. The Russian authorities routinely deny registration to opposition parties, who counter that the refusals are politically motivated.

“The idea of party registration, which lies at the base of the coalition, is a fallacious basis for a union,” said Kasparov, “as opposed to nominating a single candidate” for parliamentary elections in December 2011 and presidential elections in March 2012. He added that the main goal of the opposition currently is to mobilize its followers and hold large public events.

Kasparov’s statements were in line with a decision agreed upon earlier by the Moscow branch of Solidarity that supported the new coalition but wished to put off making a definitive decision on joining it until December’s meeting.

Demonstration organizer Elena Prikhodina of the Solidarity opposition movement said that the event, dubbed the Day of Disbelief, was dedicated to the so-called “Ryazan training exercises” held on September 22, 1999. Skeptics of the official explanation for the chain of deadly bombings – that the culprits were Chechen militants – cite the incident in Ryazan as evidence that the Russian Federal Security Services (FSB) were behind the bombings. They specifically accuse Vladimir Putin – who spent a year as head of the FSB until his appointment as Prime Minister in August 1999 – of being directly involved.

Participants of the demonstration gathered on Moscow’s Chistoprudny Boulevard and held posters reading “We don’t believe the state version of the explosions,” “Ryazan. We don’t believe,” and “The FSB is hiding the truth. The casualties Anna Politkovskaya, Yury Shchekochikhin, Sergei Yushenkov, Alexander Litvinenko searched for this truth,” among others.

Journalist Anna Politkovskaya, former FSB officer Alexander Litvinenko, and Duma members Yury Shchekochikhin and Sergei Yushenkov were all assassinated (in Shchekochikhin’s case, suspected to have been assassinated) between 2003 and 2006. Each had investigated the bombings and suspected that the FSB was to blame.

Another demonstration organizer, Mikhail Kriger, noted in his speech to the crowd that the bombings played a key role in Vladimir Putin’s first presidential campaign. Blaming the attacks on Chechen militants became the official basis for beginning the Second Chechen War, which greatly boosted Putin’s popularity, thus effectively aiding in his election. That potential motive, together with a wealth of evidence of foul play on the part of the Russian authorities, points to the FSB and Putin as perpetrators of the bombings, say skeptics of the government’s response.

Putin has written off the charges as “delirious nonsense,” but requests by relatives of victims of the attacks and others for an independent investigation continue to go unanswered.