Nikolay Rybakov, leader of Yabloko: ‘We have shown the world how many people in Russia want peace’

Thousands of Russian citizens and opposition supporters showed their support this summer for a historic party, Yabloko, after the Kremlin allowed it to participate in the legislative elections to be held from September 18 to 20. It even reached second place in the official polls. The massive backing for the only party calling for an end to the war in Ukraine forced the Kremlin to reverse course. After being barred from the vote by the Supreme Court, it still has a final appeal before that body and the Constitutional Court, but the prospects are not promising.

Its chairman, Nikolay Rybakov (St. Petersburg, 47), welcomed this newspaper into his office, where a painting bearing the inscription “People, do not kill one another” hangs. He holds an apple in his hand — the same apple many young people who have only known Putinism displayed on their social media accounts to call for change in the country. Yabloko (which means apple in Russian) is also the surname of the man who founded the party in 1993 to ensure there would never again be a war in Russia.

Question. You received support from thousands of Russians, yet you were barred from the elections. Is this a victory or a defeat?

Answer. It will be a victory if we succeed in stopping people from killing one another, but it is certainly not a defeat. We have shown the world how many people in Russia want peace, how many disagree with the government’s actions, how many oppose what is happening... Our goal is not simply to be a faction in the State Duma; the goal is peace.

I understand that for European readers it may seem strange that a party would run in elections not primarily to win seats but to change the political situation, but in Russia all decisions are made by a single person. That is the reality now. Therefore, our aim is to show that person how many Russians want peace, how many want improvements, and in that way force him to change his policy. Putin pays close attention to public opinion. If, thanks to this electoral campaign, one million people openly support change, he will be forced to carry it out.

Q. And now, what happens next? You mentioned at the trial that you had a plan B.

A. We will announce it when the authorities can no longer prevent us from implementing it. In the meantime, we will continue our campaign for peace. We ask people to keep posting their messages and videos. The authorities expect that blocking Yabloko will rob people of hope for change and of the belief that they can express their views openly. Our aim is the opposite: that they do not lose faith in themselves.

Q. Do you plan to call demonstrations?

A. No, that definitely will not happen because it would be dangerous for people. Police are going to the homes of those who attended our trial. They are intimidating and harassing them for coming to a public Supreme Court hearing. Demonstrations are banned in Russia. Nothing is more important to us than the freedom, safety, and health of these people.

Q. Your vice chairman, Lev Shlosberg, was sentenced to 11 years in prison for “discrediting” the authorities. Independent politician Boris Nadezhdin has gone into exile. Is there room for moderate opposition in Russia?

A. We still exist, and therefore that space exists, although it is obvious they are using illegal, cruel and inhuman methods against people with whom it is possible to reason. Six of our colleagues are in prison, 40 have been fined and banned from running in elections, and more than 10 appear on the list of foreign agents, including Nobel Peace Prize laureate Dmitry Muratov. In the 33-year history of our party, six members have been killed for their political convictions.

We know it is dangerous, but one million people have expressed their willingness to vote for Yabloko despite censorship, pressure, and intimidation. Even the state pollster VTsIOM showed before the campaign began that 18% of voters would consider giving us their vote, despite us being portrayed daily on television as the enemy.

Q. The Kremlin initially approved Yabloko’s electoral registration and then annulled it. Why? Were there contacts with the administration?

A. No, I don’t know what happened. What the authorities think or do is their business; we don’t know which official went to which office and said what about us to whom. We cannot keep adapting to external circumstances. Our core positions have been clear since 1993. One, written in our founding memorandum at the time of the Chechen conflict, is that there must be no wars in Russia. The second, regarding your question about calling protests, is that the means of achieving our goals are no less important than the goals themselves. Everyone knows us. We are who we are, and we have not changed.

Q. Are you prepared for an escalation in repression against you?

A. Anything is possible, yes. Can one be prepared for that? I don’t know, probably not. But you cannot live constantly thinking about it. We will keep working.

Q. How can the war be stopped?

A. The most important thing now is to declare an immediate ceasefire so people stop killing one another. Politicians, who are not killing each other, can then sit down and negotiate for as long as they need. While some are at the negotiating table, others die: children, the elderly, soldiers, civilians...

Q. Does Yabloko contemplate territorial concessions or recognition of Russia’s annexation of Crimea?

A. It is not necessary to discuss that now; the priority is to stop the killing. To anyone in Europe who talks about this, I suggest they go to the front and die there, because while some discuss it, others are dying because of it. Nothing will be resolved while people continue to kill one another. There is a mistaken idea that the parties must come to the negotiating table after achieving military successes on the front. As soon as preparations begin, fighting intensifies and dialogue is interrupted. It is impossible to negotiate anything while hostilities continue. Everything else can be discussed for as long as necessary.

On the other hand, the idea of a possible defeat of Russia is extremely dangerous and harmful. A nuclear power cannot be defeated, and attempts to achieve its total defeat would lead to a nuclear war. That war would be brief and mutually destructive; no one could later say they were wrong because there would be no one left.

Q. Have we grown accustomed to living with the risk of a major war in Europe?

A. How could we not? Every day we hear news of the dead, and those who make decisions distrust one another. People do not believe a nuclear conflict could occur because too much time has passed since Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It seems like a fairy tale. However, if total mutual annihilation happens, the planet will be left with cockroaches that will not know President Putin existed, where the border was, or who started the war.

Q. Polls show that three out of four Russians support their president, yet most are tired of the war. Could Putin end it tomorrow?

A. Absolutely. A defining trait of President Putin is that if he decides on a ceasefire, that decision will be observed by the entire ruling circle. It would be accepted by society, that is clear, but it would also be accepted by the authorities. Of course, there are dark forces that want the regime to continue the war and be brutal, but the vast majority will back it. That is why it is crucial for Putin himself, as a politician, to see this demand from society, not just the blind support for his decisions.

Q. For a hypothetical transition to democracy, would it be necessary to reach agreements with Putin’s circle, even if they are war criminals?

A. To restore peace we are willing to talk to anyone; [Yabloko founder Grigory] Yablinsky already did so with Putin. As for democracy, it cannot be established from within the presidential administration. As happened with Perestroika, that moment will come anyway, from inside or from other spheres. The question is that those who come to power understand why they arrived there and what they must do with it.

The last time people believed in change, their hopes were dashed. People lost faith in politics in the 1990s because those who carried out the reforms were not Democrats, but claimed to be because it was popular.

Sign up for our weekly newsletter to get more English-language news coverage from EL PAÍS USA Edition