The Duran Podcast - The Magnitsky Act & Narrative Control - Andrei Nekrasov, Alexander Mercouris & Glenn Diesen

Episode Date: January 9, 2025

The Magnitsky Act & Narrative Control - Andrei Nekrasov, Alexander Mercouris & Glenn Diesen

Hi, everyone and welcome. Today I am joined by Alexander Mercuris and Andrei Necrassov, a world-renowned film director, who has made many excellent films, including the 2016 film, The Magnitsky Act. And, yeah, our topic today is more or less narrative control in which films such as the Magnitsky Act, I would argue, is quite relevant. in terms of development of narratives, narratives which lay the foundations for very severe sanctions, but also what happens when you challenge the narrative, as we have seen. So some of the things we'll discuss is what was the narrative sold to push the Magnitsky Act versus reality, and also what happened to the documentary of Nacrosov on the Magnitsky Act

as this is quite troubling censorship. And, yeah, Mr. Nacrosso, you, I guess you found yourself in a strange position as you initially, of course, very sympathetic, of course, to the passing of Serrague Magnitsky, still, I assume, but you became very critical of the Magnitsky case. And to many people, this might have seen strange, as you were, I guess, well known for producing many films, critical of the Kremlin. But in these days when everything is binary, support our narrative or theirs, many would see them looking for suspicious motivations, I guess. But, well, I guess from my perspective, reality should be objective on its own.

So I guess your documentary about Magnitsky was initially based to a large extent on the story told by Bill Browder. However, once you delved into this, it became more critical. So I guess, yeah, well, I was hoping you could give us maybe start off with a bit overview of how you approach this documentary. Yeah, thank you. Well, a bit of a background is that I was quite active in what's called Russian opposition.

Of course, opposition is in some ways there's a misnomer. because opposition in the UK and other democracies is, you know, we talk of parliamentary opposition, whereas in Russia, in Russia, I was a member of some groups, organizations, which were, I'd call them civil society groups, because the novel version in the Duma, you know, which is

which is sometimes problematic because there's more and more control in Russia as well. It's to do with the war and certain processes. But we're talking about the Magnitsky film was made in, you know, between 2014-2016. And I approached the topic,

the life and death of Sergei Magnitsky, from the, let's put it, opposition, the point of view. I believed the storyteller behind this narrative, Bill Browder, who was Magnitsky's boss, a hedge fund manager. Sergei Magnitsky was an accountant

whom Browder calls a lawyer, tax lawyer, which I subsequently discovered he wasn't. Magnitsky wasn't a lawyer, Magnitsky wasn't an accountant, but I did believe Browda,

and I also believe the wider context, which is that Magnitsky was a proactive fighter for democracy who was an anti-corruption

whistleblower according to Browder and what I'm trying to say is that politically I was inclined to believe all of that because I myself was and still am to large extent a critic of the Russian government

but even though I must say that this whole saga with the film, the way it was released and actually not released, not

run by some TV news organizations which actually commissioned it and paid for it in the West. So it was essentially cancelled. So it did of course color, my whole

attitude on this you know, on the on the, what I actually, you know, believed wholeheartedly, you know, the West is all about freedom, freedom of information,

and Russia is just a you know, a a a a, if not a, if not a

dictatorship, which I don't think, even then I didn't think that Russia was a dictatorship, some and continue to go, but, but, but, a, you know, a harshly controlled society, which is the opposite, the opposite of democracy, the opposite of Western democracy, and even Western civilization, because as I think I'll, I want to also talk to you about, the Magnitsky the Magnitsky story and the whole context is far

it's not just a Russian story of a hedge fund manager and his accountant it's not any story exciting and tragic actually as it is for me it's become a

you know something something that reflects this very important period of Russian history and European history and world history. As we remember Fukuyama as famously or infamously, as far as I'm concerned, said, this is the end of history, you know, the end of 89, 91, 1981, when the year, Berlin Wall fell and the system of state socialism in Europe collapsed. That was admitted presumably at the end of history.

No, it wasn't, and it will now see nothing of the kind. So the Magnitsky story actually tells us a lot about the deeper meaning of what happened. What happened to Russia, what happened to Europe, what happened to the world. So we might want to talk about it as well. But yes, essentially,

I approached the Magnitsky story believing Bill Brown and the official version, if you look up at Wikipedia or anywhere, because 99% of the world media would still call Sergei Magnitsky a whistleblower will repeat what I think is a lie

the broader version of the events that Magnitsky was brutally murdered in a jail by Russian riot guards and so but that's as I said these are just some facts and I

as I said I just I've discovered that Magnitsky was not brutally murdered. Browder says he died tragically. And we can talk also about the state of Russian prisons. That's not matter. But he wasn't intentionally murdered. And so having believed that, I then,

already, while making the film, That's also rather extraordinary. And that's, those twists and turns, they are all in the film. You know, we see how I kind of genuinely praise even broader, you know, at our first meetings for his, what I then thought was an investigation into Magnitska's death. And then while already making it, I realized that Browder lied, that the media followed, the Western media followed Browder's narrative, very often just not even intentionally, but just refusing to consider the different persons, etc, etc. So we can, as I said, it's much larger, it's much more important than just a story. Which importance to say is that we have to separate the question of human rights

and a story of a financial crime, essentially. the tendency to see Russia in this human rights light, which may be warranted, you know, but this is a separate question. So, so kind of letting these rather general political opinions about Russia, color analysis and facts of economic processes, financial crimes, in this case, this is what Magnetian cases.

It's not only is it inaccurate, it's dangerous. It's dangerous because it leads to, you know, this kind of the logic of provocation, the logic of imposing sanctions on people who are not in this

many people who were sanctioned by the Magnitsky sanctions regimes. There's one in America, there's one in Europe, did not commit any crimes and did not have an opportunity to like in a

in a normal court of law, you know, you, you're allowed to, basically you're given your day in court, you're given a lawyer to represent you. None of that works in the, in the Magnitsky's sort of way of punishing people. And so, yeah, so. Well, absolutely. Can I, can I, can I, can I, can I, can I, can I absolutely recommend to people that you can actually find the film, despite the various attempts to make it more difficult. There are actually plenty of places you can find the film. And I think it is an absolutely compelling story, because of course what the film does is it actually describes the narrative, and it starts with an attempt by yourself to create a film based around the narrative. and as you, a filmmaker, try to recreate the film objectively around the narrative,

the narrative actually begins to fall apart. That is what makes the film so compelling and so very interesting. And over the course of the film, also, you find various different individuals, different participants in the film, including, by the way, Bouda himself, they start to behave in ways

that are radically discordant from the narrative. But I think you have made a number of very important points here. Firstly, important point one is that there is an argument, there's a very strong case, that the way that Magnitsky was treated did involve genuine infringements of his rights and of his legal rights. The way that he was imprisoned, the whole process of investigation, you could argue that there was serious faults in it. But that is not the same as saying that the narrative that was constructed around him is necessarily true.

In fact, it isn't. And of course, many of the faults in the investigation process, many of the faults in the detention process, and in the way that he's treated whilst in detention. And I have to say this, and I say this from knowledge, you can also find replicated in Western societies as well. well. But what made the narrative so compelling and so attractive, I think, to many people in the West, is, and why they still cling to it, despite the evidence which you have produced, which starts to crack it, to basically disassemble it, is because like so many of these stories that have, made up about Russia, people believe it because they already think they know in advance that it

must be true. It corresponds to their own conception of what Russia is and it fits into it almost exactly corrupt policemen, politicians who are manipulating legal processes, organized crime, working with the police in all sorts of ways, a heroic Western businessmen trying to clean up the country. This is a very attractive narrative for many people in the West, and it's one that many, many people in the West want to believe in. And here a film comes along, which says that on this particular case,

this most important case, that isn't actually what happened. and there is a very strong reaction. You actually see that with some people in the film itself. A German MEP, for example, is speechless with horror when the facts are presented to her. And that desire to believe in a particular narrative is one which affects all discussion about Russia. It explains why article after article can be written and spread about any topic relating to Russia that you can imagine. The way politics are conducted there, the way government works there, the way foreign policy works, the way the Ukraine crisis has played out.

And because there's always this assumption that we know the country already, that we have our own pre-existing conception of it, these narratives become very powerful and become very, very difficult to challenge. Now, would you agree with that? Well, absolutely, absolutely. And what I also mention it and I'd like to expand a little bit on is this whole period, the post-communist period, which is now really, what, more than 30 years, The Magnitsky case, I'd say, is a very short, well, I mean, it's a sprawling case because Browder essentially was accused in Russia of tax evasion. And then he took certain measures.

to cover it up. And Magnitsky was involved as his accountant. But it might sound complicated and very Russian, but as I said, it goes well beyond that. And look, you know, you may have heard that for the Russian, that the 90s, which in the West may refer just to fashion or the kind of music that people

who listened to the 90s. But the Russians in the 90s is an extremely traumatic period which followed the collapse of the Soviet Union, which in my humble opinion

led to what is threatening the world order and maybe even the world's security and we might be on the brink or were hopefully and not for much longer

the Third World War it is all connected it is of course connected because we I believe that you know like in 17th century Britain you know there was not one revolution

there were a couple or a few and the civil war and these processes are are extremely they're They're long, they're painful, and they're extremely complex. So, you know, forgive me for going as far as these historical illusions. But what is Magnitsky?

What is the Magnitsky case? One, William Browder, turns up in Russia, in the 90s, those traumatic 90s, where essentially something unprecedented was happening, A huge economy of the Soviet economy was up for grabs. And fortunes were made overnight, literally. It's completely unprecedented as far as, you know, your story and let me correct me if I'm wrong. You know, trillions, not even billions of dollars in today's worth were changing hands instantly. So people like Browder, sussed out, by the way, is.

is the grand son of the, ironically, of the leader of the US Communist Party in the 20th century, who was leader of the Communist Party over a long period of time, including the Second World War. So he was, he ran for president, but no chances, but he was an important figure. And I don't know, I asked Bill, how does he feel being a grandson of a communist, a communist number one of the US? And he was, you know, he realized that it was a huge paradox because there he was, you know, profiting, if not profiteering from the collapse of communism. and making a lot of money. So Magnitsky was his accountant, helping, because it was, what does it mean and make money?

In his case, it was a hedge fund, and it was taken advantage of certain loopholes in the Russian tax laws, which were very loose, and the Russians now admit, the Russian government now admits it wasn't very good legislation. There were opportunities. to bend the law, yeah, as they say in Britain, bend the law, but he also did break it. And didn't pay tax, I was caught.

And then, as I said, there was a sort of series of cover-up operation, which led to what we do know. As I said, the Magnitsky case is complicated, but then Magnitsky was arrested as a witness to this previous tax evasion case. And then there was another sort of tax crime when 230 million, dollars were stolen.

There's an equivalent of that in Western economies called Kamax, very rough equivalent. But anyway, there was a scound. Magnitsky was arrested for it. And by the way, sorry to digress a little bit, you mentioned that the arrest was illegal, but actually the European Court of Human Rights did rule that the arrest itself and the investigation of Magnitsky and consequently of Browder because it's the same case was actually there was nothing illegitimate about that the police actually the Russian police did act the European Court of Human Rights did not find a bad faith evidence of them acting illegitimately or but with that faith the way

Magnitsky was then treated in prison is another matter but the investigation was genuine yes and and Browder was convicted for tax evasion in Russia. So, okay, this is a story of financial crime, but look at it from, it's in the context of a bigger picture. So you have this gentleman, this American Browder arriving there. And look, if he is right, and the story he is telling, is true. It essentially means that, because he was very typical, he was one of the first, and according to, he's saying he was the biggest investor, I'm not sure, but he was one of the bigger

ones, okay? So if he's right, if he didn't commit any financial crime, he claims he didn't, it was politically motivated. And if Magnitsky was murdered, as he claims, This means that the general narrative of kind of the West, no one is an angel, nobody claims that the West did not pursue its own agenda. But the general kind of positive narrative for the West is that a evil system collapsed and the West came to Russia to help, essentially. came like Browder, claims he did, to share its knowledge about capitalism, which is, of course, not ideal, especially as you're a grandson of a communist number one in the US. Okay, fine, fair enough, it's not ideal, but still it's better than communism, right? And we tactfully, with a lot of care, try to educate you, the Soviets, the Russians,

how to deal with this. We would try to teach you to, you know, trade shares. That's what Browder's business was, you know. He was making money on this basically shares going from the communist shares, or the equivalent of whatever, to capture the shares. You know, the golden moment, of course. But this was all done kind of in good faith. That's the key.

If it's done in good faith, then all this paranoia, one would say, about the West on behalf of, on the part of Putin, on the part of the, you know, today, most Russians actually view the West with suspicion. They don't trust the West. It's all wrong. It's Russian paranoia. It's also intentional, you know, lying by the Russian government who accuses the West of this, that, and the other. But if Browdy's wrong, if he did commit financial crimes, if Magnitsky wasn't murdered, as he claims, and I believe lies, intentionally murders, I mean, murdered. So this gives certain credence to the roughly speaking Russian narrative. So Russians do have the reasons not to trust people.

like Browder and many, many others, including some of the guru of capitalism, you know, some time did the money, but others like Harvard, you know, famous whatever, Harvard Boys or Chicago boys, whatever they called. So there was, you know, I'm not saying everybody in the world, there are a lot of naive and well-intentioned people with, of course, okay, but this is a very, very important thing. because, you know, apropos Marx and communists,

whatever, whether you're left or not so left wing, everybody must admit that the economy was key to understand, because as I said, billions and trillions were in today's worth

were made. So all this thing about oligarch the oligarchs, all this thing about corruption. Navalny, who is Navalny, essentially? Navalny is an anti-corruption blogger who became, you know, a political leader because he was pointing finger at corrupt officials, you know, oligarchs or government officials.

So, again, if he is right, and by the way, unfortunately, because in a way I do respect Navalny because he was a courageous man okay there's no doubt about that but he was he did support a broaded version

of the Magnitsky Act and there was you know people may be forgetting now but Magnitsky because they are you know the war and other events that eclipse Magnusky's but but Magnitsky as you rightly say and Alex and Glenn it was

there before Ukraine It was the first salver in the new Cold War. So is Browder Wright and the most of the Western media who repeat his narrative? If they're wrong, unfortunately, unfortunately, the story of the relationship between the West and Russia, which led up to this terrible, of course, it's horrible war. I know I can't read the news. every day, hundreds of, you know, best, thousands may be dying. This is a terrible tragedy, and we're not through it yet, despite all the, you know, promises, you know, crump to finish.

So, so this whole thing is, it appears in a slightly different light. That's why I find we, in a way, we might, we must, we still must go back and see, Who was right? Is the narrative of Russia being basically looted? Lute it. By their own oligarchs, fine. I'm not saying, not fine, horrible. But, you know, under the West basically a watch,

because, you know, there wouldn't have impossible without Western encouragement. Yes, the West had the experience, the West had the knowledge. So if they abused this knowledge to help at least basically rip off Russia, that is the key question, at least for the Russians, believe you're me, you know, maybe the West watches it differently because I have my sort of Western cap and my Russian cap. But as someone born there, still having a lot of friends and having being the Russian, the member of the Russian opposition, I ask you to believe that this is the key question to understanding Russia today.

One is also interesting that the whole presentation of Browder, also how he went from having this financial empire to suddenly selling himself as a human rights. activist because he was quite supportive of President Putin as well. But I guess as much like the other oligarchs who Putin started to, well, the sideline in the early 2000s, he then, of course, turned on Putin and he also then began to frame himself as Putin's enemy number one. But it's quite interesting that this whole, when we frame everything as is good versus evil narrative that suddenly Bill Brothers' financial power and activities in Russia suddenly just became innocent that this was all, yeah, as if he hadn't done anything wrong,

while Magnitsky became suddenly a lawyer, he became a whistleblower and was murdered. And even though this story is full of holes, and a lot of it can be proven as being fake, the narrative kind of continues to live on, irrespective of the, the facts. And I agree with what Alexander said as well, that this whole, not just this narrative, which launched Browder into the political sphere and essentially because he was able to serve a story which was so wonderful that the West, our journalists, couldn't possibly criticize it. But it just seems as if this is a continuous story, this idea that whenever we criticize Russia, It always has to come from the disposition of moral superiority, that it's human rights versus lack thereof or liberal democracy versus authoritarianism.

And I think it has an important role because when you mentioned Fukuyama, when you set up this narrative of the end of history, one of liberal hegemony, where the whole world would align under Western rule and values, it's all premised on peaceful dominance. that is our interference into Russia then would be benign. We're just teaching them about capitalism, effectively. But this is, I noticed one thing in the documentary in which you were interviewing Browder and you had some questions about Magnitsky's, I think he was related to whether or not he was a whistleblower. And I found it interesting that immediately he suggested that,

well, if you challenge this narrative, This is what the FSB attempts to do, and this will be very harmful for your reputation. And it's just, it seems like this is always the playbook. That is, one can present cold, hard facts. At least this is what I'm discovering. And instead of addressing these facts, I see someone will question your motivations, your loyalties. They will throw out emotional rhetoric, your slogans. And this is going to be a very continuous path.

criticism about NATO expansion from the 90s, the whole Russia gate years, the Ukraine war. Often there are cold hard facts which goes strictly against the narrative. And, well, it's always, it never stands up. Facts never get to challenge the narrative. And it's something we continue to see. But, yes, I had a... Exactly. It's an ideological approach.

know, I kind of I'll also ask the people to separate, you know, there is an ideological approach or factual and historical, dialectical, you know, you know,

I just said, of course, it's not, it's not black and white. You know, the, the, the,

it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, not either or, you know. Of course, there were

a lot of people in Russia, actually, tell me, look, the 90s were not just about Western expansion, some of the things were good. Of course, of course, it's not either or, you know, the people who now say that

the Soviet Union, for example, also showed, Soviet Union was not all bad. It was not, you know, like Nazi Germany, whatever. People often compare that, you know, evil, but a lot of Ukrainians. Some of my Ukrainian friends, and that's a lot of friends, you know, the Soviet Union was just like Nazi Germany.

So it had to be destroyed, or fortunately destroyed itself. But of course, you know, I was even critical to the Soviet Union. But you can also say that there was some peaceful coexistence of those nations. You know, the moment the Soviet Union collapsed, we had, you know, the war in Chechnya and, and, sort of a series of bloody conflicts. So you have to look at these things dialectically. Of course, Russia was on its knees. Russia failed, the Soviet Union, sorry,

failed economically. There's no question about it. But Chevy said that. You have to then look at those facts, look at, you know, tax evasion cases where, you know, where rich Western hedge fund managers operate in poverty-stricken regions like in the Magnitsky case, in Kalmykia, where people, you know,

where broader used loopholes, tax loopholes and claimed he paid like five times minimum wage, but five times minimum wage was still like absolute pittance. So if you don't look at these facts, five times minimal wage will sound, wow, it's very impressive. But when you look at the facts, you realize that he abused those tax loopholes. hired people who couldn't even speak Russian properly as financial consultants, which is a clear abuse.

Russian law allowed some tax breaks if you hire people from Kalmiki. And there's a long list of these facts which may actually make Russian investigation, even Russian conviction. brought is convicted of aggravated tax evasion in Russia. It makes it all real, but who cares, but who has the patience of looking at the fact? Even journalists who specialize in, even I, you know, failed to notice all these things. believing broader for political reasons.

So what I'm saying, it is natural even. But when I, just doing my job and having actually for a change looked at the facts, look at all those boring-looking documents, and then instead,

you know, people can make mistakes. people make this taste all the time but when I in good faith just doing my job being by the way finance this film was financed exclusively by the Western

and not just Western organization but mainstream mostly publicly funded Western organizations people people whose commission editors worked close

with me. We're making this film, you know, I was making it creatively, but they, but they approved it. They approved it, you know, on all levels. And then, and even praised me, you know, for doing a great job. Once, and when the film is, is, is, is out and be attacked by a private individual, by just some rich guy, rich American-born guy, who suddenly, seems to have influence in all echelons of power in Europe and America

of course but the film was sort of banned and cancelled in Europe you know we couldn't we planned but couldn't show it at the European Parliament at the last moment it was cancelled when these things happen

I think of facts of clear censorship This is something extremely troubling, and not for Russia. As I keep saying, this is no longer Russian story. This was, for me, a shocking example that something is seriously wrong with the Western system, you know, as you call, as you say, the narrative control and information control and

I sort of yeah I was I don't want to call myself a victim but for a few years I was you know I found it down

by the fact that that you know and by the way a different organizations of those who had supported the film

their argument was they were not consistent they were contradictory in their arguments some would say I don't want to mention which but there was a basically mainstream

TV and news organizations and film funds by the way the Norwegian film foundation did the Norwegian Film Fund did believe me and did support me but the majority of those had supported us and had

and then we're blind to show the film kind of betrayed me in a way but their argument was always always different some would say we're too busy we can't we don't have resources to

to check your story. Having worked with me, you know, on it and praised me, then others said, okay, there's this technical legal, legal reason,

and a ridiculous one of that. You know, you had to, Browder had to know, you know, Mr. Browder claims that you'd approached him on a false pretence,

that you were going to make a positive film about Magnitsky and himself. And then it turned, into something else. Well, I never promised Browder. I mean, I'm a filmmaker but also investigative journalists. I never promised Browder, you know, some sort of pre-planned outcome.

I was investigating. I was asking him, you know, in good faith, specific questions. I think he failed to answer them convincingly. And that's what I publish. You know, I never promised, you know, to eulogize him or to you know, to, to make

something, you know, a propaganda piece. That's, I suppose, what, for his case. That's what I, what unfortunately, a lot of,

some journalists did. So, so, you know, it's, it's, it's shocking because we, we, in the Soviet Union,

we're, grew up believing that, okay, you know, every system, essentially, praise itself. You know, the Soviet Union was going on about, you know, fairness to workers, you know, criticism of capital. The West was going on about its freedoms, okay, you know, of course, capitalism not ideal, but it's better, you know, as Churchill said on balance, it's better than others. But essentially, every system praises itself, okay? So that wasn't a surprise for me when I arrived in the West.

Well, it was, and I was hoping that, okay, systems prey themselves, but what the West does, it allows debate, okay? It allows people they consider sort of mistaken, not evil. You should not allow sort of hate speech or anti-Semitism or, you know, propaganda violence. That should be banned always in all society. But people you disagree with, you know, you give them a say, you listen them out. You hear them out.

That's what the Soviet Union was sort of slightly worse about. But here we are. You know, I feel sometimes I feel I'm back in the US, Assad, so just because I had that experience. I was young still, but, you know, but I remember those days. I'm old enough to remember them. I have this sort of eerie feeling. I'm not, I don't care about myself in this case, but people don't get their say, don't get the minimum of saying, you know, when they have a different opinion.

And that's very dangerous because I think that's what leads to wars, I'm afraid. You know, when society doesn't allow, you know, John Stuart Mill, for God's sake, you know, read them, read the classics. If the right opinion, right opinion, who's to judge, because it's a process. But the opinion which is considered to be right, by the majority, by the government, by the good people, you know, if it's not tested enough, and I can't quote John Stitt Millimer, but it's a very simple, you know, idea. If the opponent is not given enough time or opportunity to challenge the right opinion, all is right, but give, you know, society becomes tyranny.

and I would add to that, sorry, to be presumptions, it also needs to awards. I would completely agree. I mean, there's a quote actually by supposedly by Cromwell, whether he really said it in which he apparently spoke to the British Parliament and said, please God, just consider the possibility that you might be mistaken. And, you know, that was done. the 1640s, you mentioned British history of that time, that, you know, we were going through a very, very complicated revolutionary process, which continued right up into the 18th century.

But in a sense, that was when the concept of free debate began to crack through, because until then, not widely known, in fact, but there was very, very severe censorship in England. There had been in Shakespeare's Day. Shakespeare's plays a full of political illusions, which very few people pick up on today. So I absolutely agree. And I can like to say it's not just a free speech. It's due process. The fact that, as you correctly said,

people were sanctioned as a result of the Magnitsky Act, which is in a way of calling them guilty of a particular crime for which they have never been prosecuted and which they're never given an opportunity to defend themselves. Once upon a time, that would have been absolutely unthinkable within my own lifetime. It would have been considered unthinkable that individual sanctions could be used in that kind of way. And of all the controls, the media controls that we see, the attempts to control other forms of debate and discussion.

And of course, it's undermining the one thing which was in some ways, or in many respects, the most attractive. single thing about Western societies. And one of the things that made Western societies stable, the fact that one could hold open discussions. And one could look for debates, which might ultimately point you to solutions. And it meant that problems and disputes could be mediated in particular ways. Do you think it's changing? Do you think that in the West we're starting to move away from this, that we're going, we're reverting, I mean, we now have people in the United States talking about the First Amendment of the Constitution again. There are lawyers, I know, who are very worried about the way things have gone in the United States. There seems to be a swing back in

the United States. I get the sense that in Europe, the direction continues to be very much, however, along the trajectory that you just outlined. Yeah, I think, yeah, as, as, as, as, as, as, as, as, as, As I said, I have this very strange deja vu feeling that kind of ideology, and of course, West, people would not agree, most people would don't agree that there is ideology. They'd say, okay, there's, what is ideology? Ideology is obviously communist ideology. there was a, you know, Nazi ideology. We don't have

ideology. We have some narratives, but we have freedom and we have you know, no society's ideal, of course, but there's no ideology in the sense that

there's sort of ideas in a theory and a set of values that controls information you know but but it does it does I'm afraid

and of course it's of course you cannot allow certain things to to kind of to provoke people you can't allow

hate speech. You can't allow a lot of things that kind of trigger irrational reaction in society, because there's no clear separation, of course, between debate. Can I just make a great point? Which is incitement, incitement. It has always been a crime. It is a crime under the common law. So, I mean, that has not been something that has ever been a legal issue in any country. Of course, of course, of course. But what's happening in my humble opinion is that those borderlines are blurred. And I'm, you know, incitement. Okay, fine, of course.

But what about conspiracy theory? If you look at it, what is the exact definition? Who said that this is a conspiracy theory and this is a line of investigation? This is a legitimate version, a legitimate set of questions, questioning. Who said that if you question something, you are in the conspiracy theory area? You know, and again, and again, there are conspiracy theories. But what I'm saying, what I feel, that the kind of the immunity system of Western societies, you know, I've been to the States many times, but I speak about Europe because there may be slight differences now, okay, especially coming up, yeah. But certainly Europe feels very conformist.

scientists feel very conforms to me. And acknowledging a problem, not even sort of forgiving some conspiracy theories or, you know, allowing a bit more questioning, a bit more analysis, not being kind of, you know, rejected. of the bat. But as we were mentioning the keyword debate, there must be, there must, you know, society must invest literally, even financially,

because, you know, public TV, you see more and more on BBC and others, you know, quality or not, or maybe, but sometimes I wonder, And the Magnitsky case.

Let's not talk generally, even though it's important to talk about other cases. But in Magnitsky case, unfortunately, BBC, and I worked for them. You know, I did films for Storyville. I know still people there are journalists. But with the Magnitsky case, they failed completely. They just repeated the version of one private individual, Bill Browder. and there was no debate or kind of vetting of my film, which I repeat was made by mainstream painted.

It was a relatively big budget film. So it, you know, made by Arte, the Nuitons, the Finns, the Germans, the French. It was a big event in the documentary world. it was a sort of was to be shown in a flagship investigative slot, you know, in many countries. And so it's not just a comment, a comment, you know, on the web. And we did, my colleagues and I did, in the most in the politest of ways, tried to

you know we would send the film around we presented our arguments I wrote articles you know we have a website we asked for more interviews we you know trying to get into many

fora to to talk about it you know it wasn't violent it wasn't in any sense it wasn't even over-emot even though, of course, you know, imagine being called a, you know, Russian agent or a liar, or I was once compared with Breivik, you know, film being made in Norway originally, you know. You know, that I call extreme.

You know, calling someone a liar is extreme, and that was not even the worst. and people contradicting themselves, you know, the Andres Gros, who was a rapporteur for the European, for the Council of Europe, a parliamentary assembly of the Council of Europe. He told me, and it's in the film, he told me Magnitsky was not murdered. I even said, then I wasn't, you know, I wasn't even sure myself, I was, I almost quote, I was saying, but he was killed in the way or maybe. really or kill, he interrupted me. He said, no, he wasn't murdered. Murder is too much a definition here. It was, and he said it in German, he's Swiss, you know, basically, you know, the English equivalent would be not taken care enough. He was basically, it was a case of neglect, you know. He is telling me in his office, you know, and then,

And then because of the pressure and because he felt personally kind of, I didn't, I didn't call him a lie, but I said, look, you're contradicting yourself. And I said it in the film, you know, I pointed out contradictions in the film. And he turned around and there was a full-blown attack on me in the German press, for example. And then the German Bundestag members, not just Marie-Marie Lusbeck, you mentioned others. And almost like we think there was an order from the government or from the ruling party, which was the CDU, then basically the order to the ZDF, which is public, TV in Germany or suggestion

or advice not to show the film and you know we have names and and this I think it's an extraordinary case an extraordinary case of censorship and and

and really unfair and shabby treatment of people who had nothing to gain from this we were just doing our job in the West, you know, I've never worked in Russia, actually. I was born there, but I'm not a Russian journalist. I'm not a Russian, you know, I've nothing to do with the Russian system. I understand the language, I know the history, but this should be an advantage.

Another thing is, and if most things Russians are, I'm basically dismissed. I treat it with suspicion, you know, a Russian name, an attempt to explain things historically, you know, giving context to think is immediately written off as propaganda, or in German there's this ugly word, Putin for Steyer. and the someone who understands Putin. Because understanding for God's sake means so many things in, in German, in English, in all languages.

You have to understand in order to, to not Putin in a sort of way, you know, not not agreeing with it or not, you know, understanding in the sense of forgiving everything. Of course not. But understanding Russia is a prerequisite for dealing with Russia, for a successful, effective dealing.

Because if you don't deal, if you don't understand and, you know, you lose, you even lose physically, I'm afraid. You know,

you have to understand to do, to make peace, to, to, to do, you know, constructive things, to cooperate because

we're on this small planet, which is, you know, which is free speech, though, it's very difficult to maintain when you have this demand, this extreme demand for conformity, because these days, as I suggest,

any deviation from the narrative is immediately punished. We use words you mentioned disinformation. I've had that thrown at me before, but no one ever has the obligation, even though making such a claim to explain what exact information was not true. I've heard the word controversial, but what exactly means, what's the meaning of a controversial if we don't explore how the main opinions or consensus was reached? Again, conspiracy thrown around.

one of my favorites is being accused to being pro-Russian. No one really explained this one either, what it means. Does one have to criticize everything the Russian government does? Do we have to hate the Russian people as well? It's very strange comments, but they all have the same function, which is to silence and the sensor. At the end of the day, it always results in the same, which is some of the, again, basic facts,

whether or not they can be confirmed or disconfirmed. this is just neglected. It does feel that ideology is some of the source behind this conformity, though. As I mentioned before, this demand ideological conformity to liberal hegemon, the assumption that the West has to be a force for good, that is the dominance is benign. Once this force to accept this, you know, we see the journalist becomes more or less activist. They censor away information, or self-censor, that doesn't fit the national. narrative, and often it's under the assumption that they're fighting a good fight.

They're, you know, they're caring for the right side. But we end up with this difficult situation where you see from France to Germany, where it's necessary to protect democracy by marginalizing the opposition. Again, from the Russia gate lies to Magnitsky Act, none of the, I guess, fraudulent or fake information, and no one's ever held accountable. because at least they picked the right side. They repeated the narrative of our side as opposed to the Russian. So I think it's a problem, as also Alexander pointed out,

this is without this freedom of speech, we can't identify problems, we can't come with solutions, and we can't have any course correction. I think this is why we're in very deep trouble. That's why we're where we are. And, you know, it's kind of do it at your peril thing. You know, one thing is this moral people are entitled to their moral judgments. People can't, cannot know everything, you know, let alone the technicality than the Magnitsky case. And I don't demand people, I don't blame people.

after all, I myself believe Browder, and I'm not the least attentive person. So I must have made some mistakes. I had made some judgments without checking the documents. But once there is a case like the case with my film, the film was banned at the European Parliament. the screening was cancelled the last moment. The film was banned by film festivals. It wasn't the press. If I look at this without knowing most things,

we don't know things about the world, but okay, there seems to be a genuine attempt to get to the bottom of a case like the Magnitsky. let the, hear the guy out, you know, show the film, let's have a fair debate. Because if you don't, you, in this case, the opponent was Russia, Russian Federation, before the invasion of 2022. And you presume, and by the way, even before 2014, okay, the Magnitsky case started before 2014.

So it just so happens that this financial crime case became a key to a Not debate because there wasn't a debate but a conflict between the West and Russia So it involves the Russian government who had not yet invaded Ukraine But was very angry because people were, you know, and I know some names, so it had nothing to do. They didn't have met Magnitsky, they were not involved in the case.

They were then called by the Russian government, by the way, to try and objectively, because there was a scandal. So there were police officers and investigators called after Magnitsky's death, but nothing to do in the initial investigation, tax fraud,

which would then basically, you know, and turned out to be genuine, you know, but according to the European Court of Human Rights, but we had not been involved, and we're asked to look into this objectively, the Russians, and then we're put on the Magnitsky sanctions list just for trying to find out the truth, to get to the bottom of the story. So what happens is that you kind of provoke all those people, antagonize them into saying, you know, the West is prejudiced. The Western governments are prejudiced. The Western media is prejudiced against us.

It's not fair. And you create this community of people who, you know, who have no right, as Alex said, to define. themselves, there's no due process, and you create a public opinion which then support what, you know? Of course, this doesn't justify, you know, killing civilians, but history doesn't work in those black and white terms. It's gradual. There's a, there's this critical mass which is being formed and which is, which then decides when the war, as, starts, then it becomes very black and white, unfortunately. So that's how things work.

So that's why I say, ignore it at your peril, that's why I say the lack of debate eventually leads to war. Yeah, which is not, of course, to justify in the very bit, but it's almost like, you know, Valenznollens, you know, it's not me. I don't, I would, I hate the, you know, describing some processes, I feel they're extremely tragic and I can only regret what's been going on. But I'm trying to kind of, in a way, I was a witness to some of these processes.

I was a witness of people, of innocent people, and they happen to be Russians. Yes, they are some innocent Russians. being kind of lied about publicly you know they have children they have their family they were called you know

thieves if not murderers of Magnitsky so what did they have to tell their families you know let alone some of them you know sanctions means your accounts are frozen you can't travel

to the west some of them had no accounts. They didn't want to travel, but there's also this moral element. And you can't defend yourself. You know, nobody is going to hear you are. So, so this is not fair. And it's even worse than it appears at the first sight, you know, some Russians being treated unfairly. So what? No, everything accumulates and everything has consequences. Indeed. So there's just two things I wanted to just finish on my part. One was about police officers in Russia, having been falsely accused of things they didn't do. One case did just manage to get its foot through the door in a high court in London. It didn't go very far because he came up against overwhelming jurisdictional problems. But the judge in the case, a high court judge, very well-known, highly respected high-court judge. on the basis simply of reading the submissions,

the policemen, the lawyers of the policeman had submitted on his behalf, but also the submissions that Browder and his legal team had also submitted, simply on the basis of the submissions actually made a factual finding that the police officer in question, who had been alleged to have been involved, in Magnitsky's death had no part in it whatsoever. So there was one example

of the narrative, if you like, which crumbled when it was actually scrutinized properly by a judge. That proved very difficult to do, even in that case. The case wasn't able to go very far. And of course, in most other cases,

that didn't happen. But there was already, there has been already that one decision which perhaps one ought to bear in mind part of that narrative, the Minitsi narrative, it was looked at and it wasn't sustainable in a court. The second thing is about controversy and about controversial things.

One of the films I remember watching when I was a student was the Battle of Algiers. Now that was a very controversial film in its day, extremely controversial. Many people in France didn't like it. Many people in France criticized it. Was it banned? Was it suppressed?

Did we say to ourselves, we shouldn't watch that film? Of course not. And I think today it's universally recognized as a classic. It's discussed by film historians. And of course, it sparked a huge political debate. And, you know, people looking into of the history and what had happened in France itself. And that was how it should be.

That is what partly literature, film, art have always been full. They are about controversy, not suppressing controversy. The notion of suppressing controversy in art is an absurd one. It is to misunderstand completely what art is and what it's full. At least that is my own view. I totally agree I just final comment on what you mentioned about

this lack of debates resulting in war I think that's also true to a large extent with the current war in Ukraine I mean if we would have been I guess allowed to have a proper debate about the consequences of NATO expansion at least also allowed to discuss

Russian security concerns if this wasn't taboo I think if the revelations from Russia gate, someone had been held accountable, at least we reflect upon the misinformation over years. If there have been proper debates in the media about the coup in 2014, Victoria Newland's involvement, the secret wars and CIA bases, if who had been allowed to discuss or have a debate about the sabotage of Minsk Agreement, the sabotage of the Istanbul negotiations, even Nord Stream. I find this to be the most obvious case as the Americans

admit that they knew it was an attack that the Russians did not attack these gas pipelines. And nonetheless, they still used it as an excuse for escalating the war in Ukraine and militarizing the Baltic Sea. But still, no journalist would ever want to touch it. Because, again, if they criticize it, then they're seen as taking Russia's side versus America, something you can't do. So instead, you know, they're more comfortable saying lies, effectively, pretending it never happened. And yeah, I think Magnitsky Act falls in this case as well. There's, again,

proven to be a fraudulent case, to build narratives of good versus evil, to push sanctions, again, replaced Jackson Vanek. And of course, also become a case of censorship. What happens when the facts do not fit the narrative? So, no, it's quite troubling. So I would, urge anyone, all our listeners to this to watch the movie by Andrei Negrasov on the Magnitsky Act. It can still be found places, as

Alexander said. I founded myself on Rumble. So, yes. Anyways, any final words before we wrap up? Just to repeat again, to absolutely watch that film, it retains its full relevance, in my opinion

to this day. It is absolutely as topical now as when it was made. Well, I just want to thank you. And when I criticised the West, people must understand that you know,

I'm that that generation which are the Russians, which looked up to the West. You know, I read Marx, unlike a lot of Russians, by the way, because they were kind of fed up with the propaganda.

And I was generally much more left-wing than average, and you probably know that a lot of Russians are now, even those who are kind of against the Putin government, they tend to be right-wing. It's a historical kind of, it's understandable to a certain extent because we had the government, sort of which is kind of right-wing concept, you know, government control or whatever, was communist theoretically.

So you have this reverse sort of picture there, like the looking glass sort of me. But we looked up to the West for good reasons, because there was debate. There was debate. As a sort of left-wing-leaning person, I wasn't. in love with capitalism as a system, but on balance, it was more free. And the examples you mentioned, it probably was more free. In my field, and I'm a filmmaker and writer, and in my field, of course, there was more freedom, you know, technically in the West.

For example, the left wing, the people who criticized, and sometimes very, you know, very harshly the governments in the West, they were allowed, you know, in France and in America, you know, they were allowed to criticize their governments. And that was, that, as Glenn rightly said, that's what art is all about. You cannot, you know, you know enough about art or, you know, writing so to understand that. You cannot function as an artist, as a creative person. If you don't debate with yourself, with society, with your opponents, it's about dialectics. You cannot, art is not a slogan. You know, they're excellent, catchy slogans. But that's another kind of activity.

It's always about contradictory nature of politics, of society, even of human being. And it's all interconnected. And it's all interconnected. So for God's sake, my last sort of last word, whoever will listen to it, you know, if you don't want to save, I don't know. from my point of view you know save culture because culture it

culture is the source of politics and even for the culture's sake what you what we tend to watch is more and more just entertainment what we even even if it's about issues

issues seem to be for some reason all alike You know in advance The films, as far as I'm because they're extremely formal leic And it's okay, people need to be entertained There are all kinds of tastes

You know, go for your blockbuster But leave some Of the art and creative work As it should be Contradictory Asking hard questions Otherwise, what we know as the West What we know

The West is guilty of colonialism and other things. But as a Russian, I was looking up to it. So I just wish, I just hope, the good thing will be saved. And the good thing is about debate and different opinions. And as I said, remember John Stuart Mill,

you know, it will become tyranny unless the right ideas are allowed to be challenged by people who question them. Defeat them in debate, but not with censorship, please. Andre, thank you very much. Andrea McRasel, thank you very, very much. Thank you.